◆ SNAIL [Spec] Racing - Currently Recruiting for GT7 - JOIN TODAY!!Open

[intoflatlines]

If you're not pushing the limit, you're not racing IMO. Just like how the F1 drivers make sure that a tiny bit of their outside tire is touching a bit of the white line, they are pushing the limit.

 

[swg]

If you're not pushing the limit, you're not racing IMO. Just like how the F1 drivers make sure that a tiny bit of their outside tire is touching a bit of the white line, they are pushing the limit.

Certainly so, but when you keep pushing the track boundry further from the real tarmac the greater chance of an accident and not to mention that eventually youre just cutting the "designed" corner all together. F1 rules regarding boundries are the way they are for a reason.

 

[qwietstorm]

Sometimes the Professional Drivers, in events all around the world, are given cars that just do not feel right, handle right, or (fill in the blank) ........ yet they learn the car, it's characteristics and "find a way to win". The Best seem to be always up front even if they don't win. Working "with the crew" has always had better results than kicking and screaming at the owner, etc. I'm just sayin'.

The only difference though is those guys can adjust settings to make the car a tad more bearable where in this case I'm stuck with a car that is built to participate in the motorsports version of figure skating.

 

[TEX36]

"Pushing the limit" is not the point being discussed. Rather "What is/are the limit(s)?", is the subject under inspection.
IMO the White Lines are a diffenative answer.

 

[DrKronin]

With limits as they are youre more likely to be completely offroading if youre breaking the rules. Beyond the outer edge of the kerb the next limit would be the fence. On normal corners the boundries established by the OLR arent so bad, its in the chicanes that it really encourages poor driving.

If we make the white line a boundary, several tracks suddenly don't make any sense anymore. Imagine Trial Mountain -- The entire racing line is often beyond the white lines. Right now, we have a boundary that can be explained in a sentence, and which applies to every track in the game. It took well over a year of debate to arrive at this rule, so I can assure you that this, and just about every other potential argument for having the boundaries be different has had its time in the limelight.

What you're essentially asking us to do is to have a different rule for Monza. It's not a terrible idea, but then we'd feel compelled to do the same thing for other tracks. That could breed confusion, and would certainly make life harder for JLBowler and our stewards in policing different boundaries for each track. This way, we all have a simple standard to go by. We don't have the resources of F1, or any other real-world series. F1 can afford to set a rule like the one you quoted, and then, on a year-by-year basis, decide to make exceptions like they did for the white line at the exit of Ascari over the last few years. We need to keep things simple.

 

[JLBowler]

Certainly so, but when you keep pushing the track boundry further from the real tarmac the greater chance of an accident and not to mention that eventually youre just cutting the "designed" corner all together. F1 rules regarding boundries are the way they are for a reason.

The track and the limit is the same for everyone. Get used to it. It's not changing anytime soon. As others have said, if the boundary was the white line, everyone would be pushing that limit as well. If the boundary was the wall that was across 20 feet of grass, they would push that limit if there was time to be gained. It's racing and the goal is to get around the track as fast as possible without breaking any rules.

This part applies to everyone. If you see someone breaking any rules, it's your duty to report them to the stewards. If they cut and you report, their cutting isn't worth it anymore. If you allow others in your division to cut corners then you are saying it's OK to do it.

 

[swg]

The track and the limit is the same for everyone. Get used to it. It's not changing anytime soon.

Cool down boss. At no point was I complaining about the OLR or demanding a rule change. I havent even had a chance to compete in a sunday race yet. Screenshots were posted asking if the drivers were violating rules, I responded in accourdance with what the OLR states as many others did. Just expressing my opinion on track boundries which I believe I'm entitled to.

 

[JLBowler]

Cool down boss. At no point was I complaining about the OLR or demanding a rule change. I havent even had a chance to compete in a sunday race yet. Screenshots were posted asking if the drivers were violating rules, I responded in accourdance with what the OLR states as many others did. Just expressing my opinion on track boundries which I believe I'm entitled to.

Sorry to be so blunt, but when someone who just got here calls into question something that has had as much work and debate put into it to create it and get it just the way it is so that's is simple, fair, and able to be applied with very few exceptions, well, I hope you can see how that might rub someone the wrong way.

Also, since you haven't been around here for very long, you don't realize that this is how full fledged, ten page long debates get started. Once that happens, even more people get rubbed the wrong way. I'm just attempting to end it before it gets started this time. For those of you that know me, this may sound strange but I'm attempting to be a kinder, gentler JLBowler at this time.

 

[qwietstorm]

I understand where Bowler is coming from, but when someone asks a legitimate question, like the one posed about track boundaries, it shouldn't warrant a condescending response. A simple explanation of the rules should suffice.

 

[Dragonwhisky]

Sorry to be so blunt, but when someone who just got here calls into question something that has had as much work and debate put into it to create it and get it just the way it is so that's is simple, fair, and able to be applied with very few exceptions, well, I hope you can see how that might rub someone the wrong way.

Also, since you haven't been around here for very long, you don't realize that this is how full fledged, ten page long debates get started. Once that happens, even more people get rubbed the wrong way. I'm just attempting to end it before it gets started this time. For those of you that know me, this may sound strange but I'm attempting to be a kinder, gentler JLBowler at this time.

That has the flavor of an Arnold Schwarzenegger interview I watched regarding Terminator II. Think it was on Letterman's or Leno's late night show.

 

[swg]

I understand where Bowler is coming from, but when someone asks a legitimate question, like the one posed about track boundaries, it shouldn't warrant a condescending response. A simple explanation of the rules should suffice.

I'm not sure what post you believe to be condescending. If mine, then I apologize, it was never intended as such. I don't believe Bowlers post was condescending, he's just doing his job and trying to maintain the peace. I think my comments were somewhat misconstrued. It was never my intent to suggest the OLR was wrong or needed changing, just that my opinion on track boundaries differs. I thought I was pretty clear in separating what I was stating as opinion from what the rules (and very good rules they are) indicate but perhaps not.
At one point I did say "Perhaps it could be ammended to give clearly indicated boundry lines priority," but that was more a what if/if everyone agree's statement than a request.

 

[fizzer]

Right now, we have a boundary that can be explained in a sentence, and which applies to every track in the game.

What you're essentially asking us to do is to have a different rule for Monza.

Supporting the rule and the lack of a need for modification at Monza. Most racing series (especially production based) consider kerbs as part of the track. Kerb hopping, especially in chicanes is a common part of racing. The below should always be considered legal IMO.

What would be great is if there were more flexibility in the GT6 penalty engine so we could turn on penalties and have them reflect our desired rule set precisely. I doubt enough of the user base would make use of such functionality, so I'm not holding my breath on it being implemented.

 

[jobyone]

I understand where Bowler is coming from, but when someone asks a legitimate question, like the one posed about track boundaries, it shouldn't warrant a condescending response. A simple explanation of the rules should suffice.

But the question was answered and yet we are still "Discussing it".

 

[Dragonwhisky]

What would be great is if there were more flexibility in the GT6 penalty engine so we could turn on penalties and have them reflect our desired rule set precisely. I doubt enough of the user base would make use of such functionality, so I'm not holding my breath on it being implemented.

^ This. But, If wishes were horses pigs would ride. If frogs had wings they wouldn't be bumping their rumps on the ground.

I won't be holding my breath for that either.

 

[swg]

Supporting the rule and the lack of a need for modification at Monza. Most racing series (especially production based) consider kerbs as part of the track. Kerb hopping, especially in chicanes is a common part of racing. The below should always be considered legal IMO.

What would be great is if there were more flexibility in the GT6 penalty engine so we could turn on penalties and have them reflect our desired rule set precisely. I doubt enough of the user base would make use of such functionality, so I'm not holding my breath on it being implemented.

I'm admittedly naive when it comes to production racing, F1 is really the only sport I follow so my viewpoint may be skewed towards what I see there. If kerb use is in other racing is more commonly like what you have pictured there then I certainly stand corrected. I'll just have to as Bowler says, "get used to it".

 

[JLBowler]

Full bodied, production based race series will routinely run over the curbs to the point of having two (or more) tires well off the ground. Watch some NASCAR at Sonoma and see how far off the ground those tires are when bouncing over curbs.

This from the V8 Supercars:

This is the kind of thing that you probably wouldn't want to do in an F1 car but it's considered the normal racing line in these racing series and most production based series.

 

[fizzer]

I'm admittedly naive when it comes to production racing, F1 is really the only sport I follow so my viewpoint may be skewed towards what I see there. If kerb use is in other racing is more commonly like what you have pictured there then I certainly stand corrected. I'll just have to as Bowler says, "get used to it".

F1 is an interesting beast in the racing world, especially when it comes to regulations. The rulebook is long and strict, but with the steward staff changing somewhat race to race, enforcement (especially of things of a non-technical nature) can be inconsistent.

Kerb (ab)use is pretty common as JL has further illustrated. Not to mention usually quite fun from a driver's perspective while less fun from an engineer/mechanic perspective

 

[hooker4]

Anybody got a room open?

 

[Oshawa-Joe]

On my lunch reading some of these posts.

The OLR is clear. Can it be improved? Sure. But it is what it is as decided by the stewards and has evolved over time to allow drivers more freedom of line. At one point we had the white lines as the boundary, but it didnt feel right for every track.

Our OLR is the same for all drivers. I'm sure some leagues use different guidelines from ours. Some stricter, some less so.

 

[chuyler1]

I (now) understand the OLR as it stands. Of all the game photos I posted before only the last one (where all four wheels are beyond the rumble strip) is illegal in SNAIL. That means the driving line through most of the Monza corners will put the cars completely off the tarmac and mostly onto the rumble strips. Since it has been discussed, I won't worry too much about the white line.

This from the V8 Supercars:

The photo above clearly shows that Australian V8 drivers don't adhere to the white line rule. The article accompanying this photo even mentions that drivers are known for banging fenders and hopping corners. However, take a closer look at that photo and think about how drivers would take it in GT6. Yeah, they'd be a car length to the left with two wheels in the grass. So clearly, this driver is at least attempting to keep two wheels on the flat portion of the track.

The question would be, in SNAIL, would it be fair to pass this guy by flying by the inside with two wheels on the red and two on the green? The OLR would seem to say yes, but common driving etiquette would say no, this guy has the corner covered.

 

[Chiochan]

swg you are going to hate racing with me. I almost never have 4 tires on the track at one time.

 

[JLBowler]

I (now) understand the OLR as it stands. Of all the game photos I posted before only the last one (where all four wheels are beyond the rumble strip) is illegal in SNAIL. That means the driving line through most of the Monza corners will put the cars completely off the tarmac and mostly onto the rumble strips. Since it has been discussed, I won't worry too much about the white line.



The photo above clearly shows that Australian V8 drivers don't adhere to the white line rule. The article accompanying this photo even mentions that drivers are known for banging fenders and hopping corners. However, take a closer look at that photo and think about how drivers would take it in GT6. Yeah, they'd be a car length to the left with two wheels in the grass. So clearly, this driver is at least attempting to keep two wheels on the flat portion of the track.

The question would be, in SNAIL, would it be fair to pass this guy by flying by the inside with two wheels on the red and two on the green? The OLR would seem to say yes, but common driving etiquette would say no, this guy has the corner covered.

Only the rumble strip is part of the track. Any painted area behind the rumble strip is OB. It that picture, the rumble strip is only the red/white blocked portion nearest the track. The change in color beyond that is considered OB. To answer the question, no, you could not make a pass on the inside with two tires on the grass and two on the painted area.

Of the pictures you posted earlier, 1 and 2 would be legal. 3 would be a penalty because the right side tires of the car are on the green painted surface behind the rumble strips. 4 would be a penalty for the same reason.

 

[swg]

swg you are going to hate racing with me. I almost never have 4 tires on the track at one time.

In accourdance with OLR my driving line has been adjusted. Shaved an additional second off my Monza time after only a couple attempts. My mistake was to think production racing would be more like F1, we'll get along fine.

 

[swg]

Only the rumble strip is part of the track. Any painted area behind the rumble strip is OB. It that picture, the rumble strip is only the red/white blocked portion nearest the track. The change in color beyond that is considered OB. To answer the question, no, you could not make a pass on the inside with two tires on the grass and two on the painted area.

Of the pictures you posted earlier, 1 and 2 would be legal. 3 would be a penalty because the right side tires of the car are on the green painted surface behind the rumble strips. 4 would be a penalty for the same reason.

Somewhat confused by your interpretation there. In number 3 the tires are on the rumble strip still albeit green painted portion of it. Its still actually part of the physical rumble strip. The green area as specified in the rules would be the area (in green) just beyond the physical rumble strip would it not?

Edit: I assume youre implying that line C. Qualifies as the "as stated otherwise" portion of line F.? I assumed that meant unless specifically stated otherwise by the steward at the start of a given race otherwise it should be noted as such in line F to refer to line C. Not trying to be difficult, just clear.

 

[Rallywagon]

I (now) understand the OLR as it stands. Of all the game photos I posted before only the last one (where all four wheels are beyond the rumble strip) is illegal in SNAIL. That means the driving line through most of the Monza corners will put the cars completely off the tarmac and mostly onto the rumble strips. Since it has been discussed, I won't worry too much about the white line.



The photo above clearly shows that Australian V8 drivers don't adhere to the white line rule. The article accompanying this photo even mentions that drivers are known for banging fenders and hopping corners. However, take a closer look at that photo and think about how drivers would take it in GT6. Yeah, they'd be a car length to the left with two wheels in the grass. So clearly, this driver is at least attempting to keep two wheels on the flat portion of the track.

The question would be, in SNAIL, would it be fair to pass this guy by flying by the inside with two wheels on the red and two on the green? The OLR would seem to say yes, but common driving etiquette would say no, this guy has the corner covered.

I just want to point out that in your example here "The question would be, in SNAIL, would it be fair to pass this guy by flying by the inside with two wheels on the red and two on the green?" would probably not be possible by the ORL, or at least one racer or the other would get a penalty outside of track boundry, since they would need to havbe the appropriate overlap. if they had it, then this guy would be pushing the passer into the grass. WHich would be a violation of the OLR.

 

[JLBowler]

Somewhat confused by your interpretation there. In number 3 the tires are on the rumble strip still albeit green painted portion of it. Its still actually part of the physical rumble strip. The green area as specified in the rules would be the area (in green) just beyond the physical rumble strip would it not?

Any area behind the rumble strip that is painted a different color is no longer considered to be a part of the rumble strip. It is done this way for ease of understanding by the stewards and the drivers.

When the color changes, you have crossed into a different area. If there were cobblestones that were grey that served as a rumble strip and then at a certain point they were painted green, the green ones would not be considered part of the rumble strip.

Edit: I can see I'm going to have to take pictures of all the chicanes at Monza and explain, with visual aids, what is track and what is not. I was hoping to avoid it, but it is probably the best course of action with the influx of new members we have had in recent weeks.

 

[swg]

Any area behind the rumble strip that is painted a different color is no longer considered to be a part of the rumble strip. It is done this way for ease of understanding by the stewards and the drivers.

When the color changes, you have crossed into a different area. If there were cobblestones that were grey that served as a rumble strip and then at a certain point they were painted green, the green ones would not be considered part of the rumble strip.

Edit: I can see I'm going to have to take pictures of all the chicanes at Monza and explain, with visual aids, what is track and what is not. I was hoping to avoid it, but it is probably the best course of action with the influx of new members we have had in recent weeks.

Not necesary at all. The clarification that the change in paint color marks the edge of ussable kerb is more than sufficient. Such concise language is just not present in the OLR. The OLR simply refers to it as beyond the rumble strip without specifying a difference in regards to the PHYSICAL edge. You cant expect people to know the whole story if you only provide half a book.

Also, while I get your point with the cobblestone example its not really comparable as cobble stone is a surface where as a rumblestrip/kerb is physical device with defined physical width.

 

[chuyler1]

Of the pictures you posted earlier, 1 and 2 would be legal. 3 would be a penalty because the right side tires of the car are on the green painted surface behind the rumble strips.

I fail to see how this violates the OLR. Two wheels are clearly in contact with the rumble strip, which as defined below is part of the track.

B:
Two wheels (except when airborne, where the vertical projection of the car onto the track counts) must be in contact with the track/circuit which includes the rumble strips and footpaths, but not grassed areas.

F:
Any kind of rumble strip made of concrete, stone etc are part of the track unless otherwise stated.

 

[Troggy]

In

I fail to see how this violates the OLR. Two wheels are clearly in contact with the rumble strip, which as defined below is part of the track.

this picture it appears that the car is on an unpainted part of the rumble strip. I would think that is OB.

 

[Dragonwhisky]

I fail to see how this violates the OLR. Two wheels are clearly in contact with the rumble strip, which as defined below is part of the track.

C:
All green areas are not part of the track unless otherwise stated by the Stewards prior to the race.