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

[swg]

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

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

And...
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.

One can easily assume "otherwise stated" means "otherwise stated by the stewards prior to the race" as in line C. If the change in paint color is the demarcation point and all of the "physical" rumble strip is not usable then it should be more specifically stated and lines B. and F. should be amended. I assumed that the physical rumble strip was good and "green" referred to the green area beyond the strip as shown...



Which by the way if anyone is still uncertain, according to Bowler would indeed be a penalty. If 2 tires were on the red/white checker it would be ok.
I personally think that it makes it harder for the driver by saying half of the strip is unusable. If the whole strip was good then I would know I was in the rules as long as my controller was vibrating. As is, I wouldn't really know unless I review my own replays. Another reason why I personally think it best to use the white lines any way. Its very easy to put that white line in the center of my screen and know I'm safe from penalty. The change in paint color is much harder to eyeball at 100 mph, for me anyway. If I'm not mistaken the game also assigns penalty based on using the entire strip. Where getting all 4 wheels inside the physical strip gets a penalty. That being the case, turning on penalties and letting the game penalize people seems easier and less taxing on the stewards who could then focus more on bad passing and contact issues.

But, all that's beside the point. At most all I think should really be done is to amend the OLR to clarify, without contradiction, that the change in paint marks the edge of usable rumble strip. Simply add... "and as stated in line C." to the end of lines B and F.

 

[chuyler1]

So you are saying that NO WHEELS can be on the green part of the track inside the rumble strip? Because the combination of the two rules seems to imply as long as two wheels are touching the track surface (which includes rumble strips) the driver is in the clear.

 

[hooker4]

I say just keep two tires on the grey and you will be ok. Stop trying to cut it so close. That way there wont be any questions as to whether or not it will be a penalty. Just race and have fun. Because this subject is getting kind of old.

 

[JLBowler]

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR RULING​

If anyone has any questions about what is track and not track, they need to be sent to read the upcoming post.

The seven pictures here are in order as you would see them on the track. 1 and 2 are the first chicane at the end of the main straight. 3 and 4 are the second chicane on the course. 5, 6, and 7 make up the three apexes at Ascari. #8 shows the exit of Ascari and I will deal with that at the end of this post.

In all of these photos, only the red/white section of rumble strip is considered to be part of the track surface. It is specifically stated in the OLR, as DragonWhisky posted just above, that any green painted surface is not considered part of the track unless specifically stated by the stewards. We are not making that statement for Monza. As always, you must keep at least two wheels on the track surface.

Before anyone says but this or but that, read the last paragraph again then go read the ENTIRE section on track boundaries in the S.N.A.I.L. OLR. The link is in post #1 of this thread.

This picture shows the exit of Ascari leading down the straight. You will notice that when the rumble strip ends there is a white line that continues. There is no pavement change here from one side of the white line to the other. There is a very limited area here before you run out of room and would be on the grass if you were outside the white line. With this in mind, the white line will serve as the track boundary at this point in the track and only at this point in the track. If you find yourself with more than two wheel outside this line, you must take all necessary precautions upon re-entering the track. Re-entering at this point and causing another driver to take evasive action or lift off throttle to avoid your re-entry will be subject to an unsafe re-entry penalty from the stewards. If you run out here and there is nobody around and you come back on without incident, the stewards will be able to review if any advantage was gained. If it is deemed that an advantage was gained, then you will be subject to an out of track boundary penalty from the stewards.

 

[swg]

So you are saying that NO WHEELS can be on the green part of the track inside the rumble strip? Because the combination of the two rules seems to imply as long as two wheels are touching the track surface (which includes rumble strips) the driver is in the clear.

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

And...
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.

One can easily assume "otherwise stated" means "otherwise stated by the stewards prior to the race" as in line C. If the change in paint color is the demarcation point and all of the "physical" rumble strip is not usable then it should be more specifically stated and lines B. and F. should be amended. I assumed that the physical rumble strip was good and "green" referred to the green area beyond the strip as shown...

View attachment 101409

Which by the way if anyone is still uncertain, according to Bowler would indeed be a penalty. If 2 tires were on the red/white checker it would be ok.
I personally think that it makes it harder for the driver by saying half of the strip is unusable. If the whole strip was good then I would know I was in the rules as long as my controller was vibrating. As is, I wouldn't really know unless I review my own replays. Another reason why I personally think it best to use the white lines any way. Its very easy to put that white line in the center of my screen and know I'm safe from penalty. The change in paint color is much harder to eyeball at 100 mph, for me anyway. If I'm not mistaken the game also assigns penalty based on using the entire strip. Where getting all 4 wheels inside the physical strip gets a penalty. That being the case, turning on penalties and letting the game penalize people seems easier and less taxing on the stewards who could then focus more on bad passing and contact issues.

But, all that's beside the point. At most all I think should really be done is to amend the OLR to clarify, without contradiction, that the change in paint marks the edge of usable rumble strip. Simply add... "and as stated in line C." to the end of lines B and F.

Based on line C you have to assume that the green painted area of rumble strip is in fact NOT rumble strip. You must have 2 wheels "at least" outside the green edge and on the red/white checker. The problem is that line C is contradicted by lines B and F which simply say rumble strip without referencing any portion of the strip painted in green as stated in line C. The general understanding is that you are supposed to know this but it could use some rewriting.

 

[hooker4]

I have a room open if anyone is interested
Room # 1472-6681-3415-7078-8859

 

[screaming chief]

Just keep two wheels on the red and white and you'll be ok .

 

[JLBowler]

If you read all the rules and use them together and don't infer anything that's not there, it makes sense and is quite easy to understand.

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.

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


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

Since these three rules seem to be the point of confusion, I will explain them again.

B. states that two wheel must be in contact with the track which includes rumble strips...
C. states that green areas are not part of the track. This means that if it's painted green it's not track unless the stewards say otherwise. It doesn't matter where it is or what the surface is, if it's green, it's not track.
F. states that any kind of rumble strip made of ..... are part of the track unless otherwise stated. It is stated in C. that if it's green, it's not track.

When you use all the rules that apply, it's not confusing at all. The problem and lack of understanding occurs when you pick and choose which rules you want to read in an effort to make your case.

 

[swg]

Its actually reading them all that makes it confusing. On 2 lines it says rumble strips are ok and in one it says green is not ok. You may automatically come to the conclusion that this includes green rumbles strips as being not ok but another person could easily make the opposite argument.

 

[Rallywagon]

Yep, if you are not sure, after reading B, D, E F G or any other letter of the alphabet, then please see C. That one is the trump card in this hand, and nothing in the rules contradicts it or anything else, the ends of C and D sum up the rest of it. If all of those confuse you, maybe breaking boards with your head is a more suitable hobby. Otherwise, the answer is very clear and concise, and everything else is simply for the sake of arguing, to which I point you to sub-section G of Section 1..

Edit: swg, All. the very first word of the sentence of C is all. Not some, or a few. That is a pretty specific word.

 

[DrKronin]

Its actually reading them all that makes it confusing. On 2 lines it says rumble strips are ok and in one it says green is not ok. You may automatically come to the conclusion that this includes green rumbles strips as being not ok but another person could easily make the opposite argument.

I feel that you're ignoring the last three words of section F...

 

[JLBowler]

Unless otherwise stated are very powerful words. If means that you can't take what was said right before it as the be all end all and apply it to every situation. It means you have to read everything else to see if something different is stated anywhere.

 

[intoflatlines]

The difference between the "unless otherwise stated" language in C and F are that...

C - states that green areas are never part of the track "unless otherwise stated by the Stewards prior to the race"

F - states that rumble strips are always part of the track "unless otherwise stated".


So C (green areas are never track) is an exception to F (rumble strips are always track), however, F is not an exception to C since it was not otherwise stated by the Stewards prior to the race

 

[JLBowler]

The difference between the "unless otherwise stated" language in C and F are that...

C - states that green areas are not part of the track "unless otherwise stated by the Stewards prior to the race"

F - states that rumble strips are always part of the track "unless otherwise stated".


So C (green areas are never track) is an exception to F (rumble strips are always track), however, F is not an exception to C since it was not otherwise stated by the Stewards prior to the race

Somebody scored pretty high on the reading comprehension portion of the test. You have it down exactly as it was intended.

 

[intoflatlines]

Somebody scored pretty high on the reading comprehension portion of the test. You have it down exactly as it was intended.

I done my homeworks, I is good at read.

 

[swg]

Unless otherwise stated are very powerful words. If means that you can't take what was said right before it as the be all end all and apply it to every situation. It means you have to read everything else to see if something different is stated anywhere.

Just like in line C.... A person can just as easily assume lines B and F apply to the otherwise stated portion of line C.

 

[swg]

The difference between the "unless otherwise stated" language in C and F are that...

C - states that green areas are never part of the track "unless otherwise stated by the Stewards prior to the race"

F - states that rumble strips are always part of the track "unless otherwise stated".


So C (green areas are never track) is an exception to F (rumble strips are always track), however, F is not an exception to C since it was not otherwise stated by the Stewards prior to the race

Omission is not clarification. Otherwise stated in lines B and F can just as easily be assumed to mean the same. Fact is I didnt start this question so any claim that the rules are obvious in their interpretation are wildly invalid.
Its very simply a case of something being poorly written whether or not people who "get it" want to admit it.

 

[Dragonwhisky]

swg, I don't recommend you ever take the Journeyman electrician's license exam.

 

[intoflatlines]

Just like in line C.... A person can just as easily assume lines B and F apply to the otherwise stated portion of line C.

Honestly, I can see how someone just skimming through the rules might be confused. But when you really take the time to read the exact wording for each rule, you will see that it's pretty simple. Since F ends with only "unless otherwise stated" then C counts as an exception. But since C ends with "unless otherwise stated by the Stewards prior to the race", it does not count as an exception to F, unless prior to a specific race, the Stewards specifically state that ____ green area counts as on-track.

 

[intoflatlines]

Omission is not clarification. Otherwise stated in lines B and F can just as easily be assumed to mean the same. Fact is I didnt start this question so any claim that the rules are obvious in their interpretation are wildly invalid.
Its very simply a case of something being poorly written whether or not people who "get it" want to admit it.

How can you not see a difference between these two?

"unless otherwise stated by the Stewards prior to the race."
"unless otherwise stated."

 

[JLBowler]

Read C one more time because you obviously did not score well on the reading comprehension portion of the test. Unless otherwise stated by the Stewards prior to the race means that if the stewards don't specifically come out and say that this particular green area will be considered track today, it's not track under any circumstances.

I can't be any more clear and all I did was define words for you. There is no mystery there, it's simple English. If all that is said is "unless otherwise stated" that means that it can be trumped by another rules that is already on the books. If it say "unless otherwise stated by the stewards prior to the race" It means the stewards must make an announcement to trump that portion of the rules.

If at this point, @swg, if you don't understand, I don't know what to tell you. If you do have an understanding, it's time to drop the issue and quit wasting forum space.

 

[TEX36]

@JLBowler. Have we reached 10 pages of discussion yet, or do we have more to go?

 

[chuyler1]

Thanks for the photos! I forgot to mention I am partially colorblind. I don't think I ever noticed half the rumble strips are green until now. It looks like I don't have much adjustment to make to my line afterall.

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR RULING​

If anyone has any questions about what is track and not track, they need to be sent to read the upcoming post.

The seven pictures here are in order as you would see them on the track. 1 and 2 are the first chicane at the end of the main straight. 3 and 4 are the second chicane on the course. 5, 6, and 7 make up the three apexes at Ascari. #8 shows the exit of Ascari and I will deal with that at the end of this post.

In all of these photos, only the red/white section of rumble strip is considered to be part of the track surface. It is specifically stated in the OLR, as DragonWhisky posted just above, that any green painted surface is not considered part of the track unless specifically stated by the stewards. We are not making that statement for Monza. As always, you must keep at least two wheels on the track surface.

Before anyone says but this or but that, read the last paragraph again then go read the ENTIRE section on track boundaries in the S.N.A.I.L. OLR. The link is in post #1 of this thread.

This picture shows the exit of Ascari leading down the straight. You will notice that when the rumble strip ends there is a white line that continues. There is no pavement change here from one side of the white line to the other. There is a very limited area here before you run out of room and would be on the grass if you were outside the white line. With this in mind, the white line will serve as the track boundary at this point in the track and only at this point in the track. If you find yourself with more than two wheel outside this line, you must take all necessary precautions upon re-entering the track. Re-entering at this point and causing another driver to take evasive action or lift off throttle to avoid your re-entry will be subject to an unsafe re-entry penalty from the stewards. If you run out here and there is nobody around and you come back on without incident, the stewards will be able to review if any advantage was gained. If it is deemed that an advantage was gained, then you will be subject to an out of track boundary penalty from the stewards.

 

[JLBowler]

@JLBowler. Have we reached 10 pages of discussion yet, or do we have more to go?

This was simple. The original question was answered long ago. One individual just doesn't seem to grasp a simple concept. Perhaps I just should have told them how it was and not showed them the rules. It seems that reading has only made things more difficult for them to understand. Intoflatlines is right. If you skim over it, you might find it all a little confusing, or a lot confusing depending on your mental ability, but if you take the time to read it and let it sink in and actually apply each rule to the other rules, it's all there to be digested.

Edit: we're down to one individual that hasn't shown a grasp of it yet.

 

[swg]

swg, I don't recommend you ever take the Journeyman electrician's license exam.

Actually my qualifications are well beyond a journeyman electrician. REAL technical documentation is exactly what I'm describing; concise and without room interpretive contradiction, but that's beside the point.

Read C one more time because you obviously did not score well on the reading comprehension portion of the test. Unless otherwise stated by the Stewards prior to the race means that if the stewards don't specifically come out and say that this particular green area will be considered track today, it's not track under any circumstances.

I can't be any more clear and all I did was define words for you. There is no mystery there, it's simple English. If all that is said is "unless otherwise stated" that means that it can be trumped by another rules that is already on the books. If it say "unless otherwise stated by the stewards prior to the race" It means the stewards must make an announcement to trump that portion of the rules.

If at this point, @swg, if you don't understand, I don't know what to tell you. If you do have an understanding, it's time to drop the issue and quit wasting forum space.

My degree with honors including honors literature would tend to disagree.
AGAIN, I have no problem understanding what the rule is. What I'm pointing out is the need for more precise wording because other people have obviously questioned the contradictions present in the document as it is.

How can you not see a difference between these two?

"unless otherwise stated by the Stewards prior to the race."
"unless otherwise stated."

What part of
"unless otherwise stated"
can just easily mean
"unless otherwise stated by the stewards prior to the race."
do you not see?

And just to add... Turning to trying to insult me or my intelligence because of your failure to make or understand a logical argument is poor form at best.

If you want to accuse anyone of not understanding the rules as they are written, let me provide you with some examples...

How can you not see a difference between these two?

"unless otherwise stated by the Stewards prior to the race."
"unless otherwise stated."

Yes, the car on the rumble strip is fine but the Takata NSX in the background is definately not!



The green area is off track so 4 wheels in there is not legal.

How are those out of bounds?

Are you sure, the OLR seems to say otherwise...

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.

Edit: LOL, beat me too it intoflatlines

I believe Two wheels must remain within the track boundary at all times!

In those images all four are beyond the the white line lines which is outside the track boundary, Correct?

Good point dude, never thought that way, now I want clarification from the powers!

Is it the White line?
Or
Is it the rumble strip?

And here, Bowler specifically says BEYOND THE RUMBLE STRIP, which implies the physical object bordering the track. NOT a layer of paint.

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.

Now do you want to accuse me of being an idiot and being the one claiming the OLR is confusing? All I've tried to do is explain why people are debating the clarity of the rule.

 

[Schmiggz]

So can i drive over the green thingie or not??? If not I break everything over here!!!!

Just kidding... I learned my lesson in Monza when we did it with the RUFs. I got a penalty for every lap by running over those areas

 

[JLBowler]

Actually my qualifications are well beyond a journeyman electrician. REAL technical documentation is exactly what I'm describing; concise and without room interpretive contradiction, but that's beside the point.




.

Unfortunately, concise and without room for interpretive contradiction doesn't work for a set of rules that has to govern every single possible corner on every single possible racetrack that we could run on. The rules have to be left open to interpretation by the stewards to allow them to be applied to the various situations that we must govern.

 

[jamilla]

Hi, I'd like to join your racing league.

 

[Rallywagon]

Actually my qualifications are well beyond a journeyman electrician. REAL technical documentation is exactly what I'm describing; concise and without room interpretive contradiction, but that's beside the point.



My degree with honors including honors literature would tend to disagree.
AGAIN, I have no problem understanding what the rule is. What I'm pointing out is the need for more precise wording because other people have obviously questioned the contradictions present in the document as it is.



What part of
"unless otherwise stated"
can just easily mean
"unless otherwise stated by the stewards prior to the race."
do you not see?

And just to add... Turning to trying to insult me or my intelligence because of your failure to make or understand a logical argument is poor form at best.

If you want to accuse anyone of not understanding the rules as they are written, let me provide you with some examples...













And here, Bowler specifically says BEYOND THE RUMBLE STRIP, which implies the physical object bordering the track. NOT a layer of paint.

Get real dude. You are only arguing for the sake of arguing. If your concern was ambiguous wording, then Mr. Fancy Pants with honors would have offered a solution. I don't know if you got lots offree time, got bored or what. But you sure as **** weren't arguing with innocent intentions.

 

[swg]

Get real dude. You are only arguing for the sake of arguing. If your concern was ambiguous wording, then Mr. Fancy Pants with honors would have offered a solution. I don't know if you got lots offree time, got bored or what. But you sure as **** weren't arguing with innocent intentions.

I did in fact offer a simple solution many many posts ago. And mr. Fancy pants isnt bragging but he does have a right to defend himself when insulted. You call me an idiot then say I'm bragging when I say I'm not? Get a grip on the logical flow of that debate bro.

Here you go...

But, all that's beside the point. At most all I think should really be done is to amend the OLR to clarify, without contradiction, that the change in paint marks the edge of usable rumble strip. Simply add... "and as stated in line C." to the end of lines B and F.