I still don't like the concept of looking at lap/gap times to determine promotion and relegation. Drivers should be promoted and relegated based on their on-track success, not the lap times they post. Setting hot laps is what the qualifying session is for. Beating your rivals on the track is what the races are for.
You mean like this? Sound good to me. 👍
With a 4-5 week mini-season, consistency will definitely be rewarded. Those who finish consistently at the top will get promoted. Those who finish consistently at the bottom will get relegated.
Yes, we can either us time trials (like esh mentioned above) or tcrash's Wednesday night races. Either way would be fine by me.
Crazy idea... Why not use the S2000 / Deep Forest Reverse track AS the test bed?
Grab a couple of SNAILS one night, run a few quick ones and compare to the amount of data we have?
Car - Dodge Challenger Srt8
Track - London
Allrighty then. SNAILs, get ready to turn left, then left again, the left again, and left one more time. We will be keeping the Viper ACR but taking it to the Indianapolis Motor Speedway (oval in case there was any doubt).
Wow, I thought you were talking about London reverse for a second...
At least it's not the Enzo on Autumn Ring Mini. :\
First of all, I had a lot of fun last Sunday, I was bored of looking for a room where people don't ram you into a wall at the first opportunity they have.
I know I have only race with you one week, but I have a couple of ideas after reading the last few post.
I believe there are three prizes A, B and C. Right? Why don't you alternate those prizes through the overall winner of each division?
I love the idea of promotion and relegation being done every four or five weeks. Just do it the first week of each month so it's easily understood. As was stated above, if this is done, then the qualification and placement of new drivers in the proper division is a necessity. It wouldn't be fair to D3 to put a new driver with D1 skills and leave them there for a month.
I went ahead put together a ranking system for all SNAIL drivers and I have all the results loaded in since we started the perfect 100 system of points. This could probably used as a good tool when it comes time to promote and relegate each month if we wanted to use it.
I also like the idea of spreading around the decision of car and track selection among the divisions. I think maybe the rotating idea is the best proposal out there so far. I really don't have any thoughts to do it, but I'm open to anything that involves more drivers in the decision making process.
I just went to CalgaryJobShop and did a search for Civil Engineer, got a bunch of hits. Not sure if you want to move or not ...
Had a couple at the City of Calgary too,
Car - Dodge Challenger Srt8
Track - London
We had a parity race there and it was quite fun!
Zero, I used a multiplier for D1 and D2 to give added weight to the higher divisions (a win in D3 is not the same as a win in D2 is not the same as a win in D1). Basically a win in D3 is on the same level with a 7th place run in D2 and a win in D2 is on par with a 7th place run in D1. This allows us to see over a period of time who should be considered for promotion or relegation.
It's completely updated right now and it's in an excel document. I can copy and paste into the thread or I can copy and paste into a PM for you to take a look at first.
Zero you might not want to call it "SNAIL Trails". That has a pornographic sound to it.
If I remember correctly, that parity race was horrible. I think we had 207s and Minis, which fit that track better than a big V8. But we had twice as many people show up that night as we normally do. So the six to seven drivers I was expecting would've fit. the 12 or 14 we had made it a roller derby.
Seriously though, this is the third car/track combo that I can think of from you that will far and away be a one-and-done combo. No offense, but... I don't think you get it.
I could already see where there is an agenda in what you picked, mopar, and your stating it only makes me more disheartened.
I don't get all this hate on Mopar's combo, it sounds very exciting, London is one of the best tracks in game. I am hating Bowlers oval track choice much more, which will remove skill from the race as anybody can turn left over and over and then go straight.
Any car + Nurburgring always equal "awesome".Since we will get onto the Nordsheifle this week, I'm not sure how things will go. We'll see.
Gee, London = follow the leader or make contact trying to get around
Indy = pass anywhere you want with a nice wide track
I could have picked Daytona then we wouldn't even have to lift or I could have picked a combo where the car doesn't have enough gear for the track (that's always fun).
Wasn't it brough up a long time ago that if someone picked too many one and done combos, we might look at taking away your ability to choose combos? I don't remember for sure when this was and I really don't remember if there was any outcome to it.
I think the penalty system is flawed, for this I chose the combo above. There will be contact made, and lots of penalty's given, due to the penalty systems flawed logic. It seems some people can be told over and over something is flawed but cannot see it, so they need to see it with their own eyes, in action.
Case in point, the sliding point scale, concerns were brought up about its flaws, but were shot down due to the "rare" chances of said flaw happening were 1 in a million. 2 weeks later said flaw showed up, the "Oh you were right" came out, and it was adjusted, but it took nothing less than Devious to prove the the point to everyone by actions.
I admit, I don't like the penalty system. We've had a debate about it in the stewards forum, and it is going in a direction that I don't like.
Not sounding rude at all, but i must ask, it seems you do AGREE there is a "Point to prove" in my pickings?Now, as to the track pick, please change it. I don't want to sound rude, but... let's be mature and don't ruin everyone's Sunday evening just to "prove a point".
Case in point, sandbag to not be in front.....Yes, the person in front is vulnerable, so... don't be in front.