PURE | JGTS - Going on strong and adapting in the face of change!

[The Outlaw]

The Outlaw: I agree with what you say as a whole..

But, as hard as it is too gain positions in the sprint race, it's as easy to loose positions after an off/wreck..

That's a bit of a moot point IMO, as it goes both ways. To me this only reinforces the fact that making a mistake in the sprint race can be very costly though...and when starting out back in the sprint race you're much more likely (especially at a track like Monaco) to encounter an off or some type of contact which requires a costly unscheduled pitstop (like Tony did at Suzuka), than if you were to start out front in clean air by not even bothering with qualifying.

You could perform worse in the quali on purpose if you want a better grid spot for the sprint race. But you have to remember that it's only half points.

I think it might be a bit more complicated than that though. Using Monaco as an example - I think Tony could probably consolidate a 3rd place in the feature race even if he started out back, making his way through the field with a well played strategy and smart driving. Now in the sprint race he would be on pole and would quite easily be able to walk away with a win I would imagine. This would leave him with 76 points for the weekend. Now on the otherhand, if he were to qualify on pole for the feature race and win, he would then be placed at the back of the grid for the sprint race and would only have roughly 58.5km (and 1 mandatory pit stop) to work his way up through field quickly, without taking too many risks and taking any damage (which can kill you in such a short race). And lets say that half the grid pit within a 1-2 lap window of him, it's quite easy to imagine that he may only be able to consolidate say a 5th place in the end, because of the lack of time and oppurtunity (through variables in strategy) to make safe/clean overtakes. According to the math, this would then leave him at 76 points once again...despite the completely different qualifying performances (not even bothering to qualify in the in my first example) and race strategies.

Basically, with that example set in place, I think atm there is too little importance (although it's a matter of opinion I guess) on performing well in qualifying. From my perspective, considering that we do make a rather big production out of running qualifying (with stewards & penalties in place), I think it should hold more merit than it does - because IMO, atm we are making a bit of a mockery out of qualifying and putting more pressure than neccesary on the individuals (especially those who overperformed in qualy) who qualified well but has a bad/unlucky feature race, who are then automatically setup for failure in the sprint race. Atm, qualifying well is too much of a double edged sword in some cases.

Also, you can have a situation where the quickest drivers (say D1 gold level) have lack luster performances in qualifying, while say a fairly strong driver (say D2 Gold) has a once in a life time performance in qualifying that puts him on pole. It's fair enough to say that this driver would probably get overtaken in the course of the 175km feature race, and end up only finishing just off the podium in the feature race. Once again, his stellar performance in qualifying is likely to only set him back in the sprint race (and in terms of overall points scored for the weekend) as the stronger drivers start just ahead of him in the sprint race. To me this way of attempting to level things just doesn't make sense.

This is our quali results prior round 1:
GTP_timeattack
tony1311
GTP_Aderrrm
GTP_CSL
BiffyClyro93
chorda
Remy_K
RedReevos
Wardez
El_Aliens69
WiiFreak
GV27-
TnJF
GTP_Welsh-Bain

So the sprint race grid looked like this:
GTP_Welsh-Bain
TnJF
GV27-
WiiFreak
Wardez
RedReevos
Remy_K
chorda
BiffyClyro93
GTP_CSL
GTP_Aderrrm
tony1311
GTP_timeattack

But should've looked like this if we reversed the result:
TnJF
GV27-
RedReevos
GTP_Welsh-Bain
BiffyClyro93
GTP_CSL
Wardez
WiiFreak
chorda
Remy_K
GTP_timeattack
tony1311
GTP_Aderrrm

I'm not 100% sure, cause I type the order as I recall it.. But either way, the difference is not that huge imo..

That's just from one race though. GTP_CSL is also a decent example of someone who had a strong qualifying performance but had a sub par feature race (finishing 8th) and then was setup for failure in sprint race due to the reversed qualifying grid order. After finishing 7th in the sprint race he is only 8th in the points atm (despite qualifying well in 4th). To me this says something about the flaw in trying to level things by simply reversing the qualifying order in the sprint race.

Well, it's obviously more of a scenario type thing.

But with the current system, winning feature + 13th in second heat = 48 points. Finishing 13th in feature + winning second heat only equals 36.
So to me it's a close call, I just think the reversing grid option serves those having a rough day better.

I think you're missing something though - if a driver (lets say Tony) can win a feature race (from starting out front) + manage 13th in the sprint race when starting out back (which can easily happen if they have to make just one unscheduled pitstop after making contact with a slower driver), realistically shouldn't he easily be able to finish better than 13th in the feature race even he didn't bother with qualifying and decided to start from the back? I think as we know, it's much easier (and more reliable) to work your way to the front over the course of 175km than in a 1/3 of that distant....especially at tracks where passing is easy enough.

Also, I think you were a good example of how qualifying well can hurt you for the sprint race (and the entire round for that matter), if you happen to slightly overperform in qualy and slightly under perform in the feature race. You did an excellent job and qualified 4th for the feature race but only managed 8th, just ~ 6 seconds back of 4th in the end. So after probably not getting the result you would have wanted in the feature race, you were then forced to start torward the back of the sprint race (because you qualified well), where you managed to pull off a 7th place in the end. So your points tally for the weekend only put you at 8th, which IMO shows that reversing the qualifying order most llikey only hurt you, and that qualifying well could have only been detrimental after not placing so well in the feature race.

Basically, this gets back to the point that the grid order for the sprint race should be based on points scored in the feature race...otherwise the attempt to level out the field and give everyone an equal oppurtunity in being competitive in terms of points scored (which is all that matters! Right?) is too hit or miss when using the reversed qualifying order for the sprint race.

I actually just thought of it in a new way, too.
Reversing qualifying order potentially leaves qualifying on the pole not a useful thing. It leaves room, for example, for an alien to intentionally start the back, and work up and win the feature race anyway, only to keep pole for the second heat.
Reversing grid order, there is no advantage to be gained through the system, ever.
Because the feature race yields more points, so finishing poorly for pole in second heat will only hurt a driver's points total, and qualifying is still qualifying, and the higher the better, in every scenario.

Exactly 👍

Unless the intention is to devalue qualifying to a certain extent. How big a part in the race should qualifying actually play?

Personally I think it should play a bigger part than it does. If we're going to bother with organizing qualifying in a rather serious way, shouldn't we actually have it means something? (in terms of at least being some type of benefit for a driver who is able to deliver when it counts).

 

[CSLACR]

That's a bit of a moot point IMO, as it goes both ways. To me this only reinforces the fact that making a mistake in the sprint race can be very costly though...and when starting out back in the sprint race you're much more likely (especially at a track like Monaco) to encounter an off or some type of contact which requires a costly unscheduled pitstop (like Tony did at Suzuka), than if you were to start out front in clean air by not even bothering with qualifying.




I think it might be a bit more complicated than that though. Using Monaco as an example - I think Tony could probably consolidate a 3rd place in the feature race even if he started out back, making his way through the field with a well played strategy and smart driving. Now in the sprint race he would be on pole and would quite easily be able to walk away with a win I would imagine. This would leave him with 76 points for the weekend. Now on the otherhand, if he were to qualify on pole for the feature race and win, he would then be placed at the back of the grid for the sprint race and would only have roughly 58.5km (and 1 mandatory pit stop) to work his way up through field quickly, without taking too many risks and taking any damage (which can kill you in such a short race). And lets say that half the grid pit within a 1-2 lap window of him, it's quite easy to imagine that he may only be able to consolidate say a 5th place in the end, because of the lack of time and oppurtunity (through variables in strategy) to make safe/clean overtakes. According to the math, this would then leave him at 76 points once again...despite the completely different qualifying performances (not even bothering to qualify in the in my first example) and race strategies.

Basically, with that example set in place, I think atm there is too little importance (although it's a matter of opinion I guess) on performing well in qualifying. From my perspective, considering that we do make a rather big production out of running qualifying (with stewards & penalties in place), I think it should hold more merit than it does - because IMO, atm we are making a bit of a mockery out of qualifying and putting more pressure than neccesary on the individuals (especially those who overperformed in qualy) who qualified well but has a bad/unlucky feature race, who are then automatically setup for failure in the sprint race. Atm, qualifying well is too much of a double edged sword in some cases.

Also, you can have a situation where the quickest drivers (say D1 gold level) have lack luster performances in qualifying, while say a fairly strong driver (say D2 Gold) has a once in a life time performance in qualifying that puts him on pole. It's fair enough to say that this driver would probably get overtaken in the course of the 175km feature race, and end up only finishing just off the podium in the feature race. Once again, his stellar performance in qualifying is likely to only set him back in the sprint race (and in terms of overall points scored for the weekend) as the stronger drivers start just ahead of him in the sprint race. To me this way of attempting to level things just doesn't make sense.



That's just from one race though. GTP_CSL is also a decent example of someone who had a strong qualifying performance but had a sub par feature race (finishing 8th) and then was setup for failure in sprint race due to the reversed qualifying grid order. After finishing 7th in the sprint race he is only 8th in the points atm (despite qualifying well in 4th). To me this says something about the flaw in trying to level things by simply reversing the qualifying order in the sprint race.



I think you're missing something though - if a driver (lets say Tony) can win a feature race (from starting out front) + manage 13th in the sprint race when starting out back (which can easily happen if they have to make just one unscheduled pitstop after making contact with a slower driver), realistically shouldn't he easily be able to finish better than 13th in the feature race even he didn't bother with qualifying and decided to start from the back? I think as we know, it's much easier (and more reliable) to work your way to the front over the course of 175km than in a 1/3 of that distant....especially at tracks where passing is easy enough.

Also, I think you were a good example of how qualifying well can hurt you for the sprint race (and the entire round for that matter), if you happen to slightly overperform in qualy and slightly under perform in the feature race. You did an excellent job and qualified 4th for the feature race but only managed 8th, just ~ 6 seconds back of 4th in the end. So after probably not getting the result you would have wanted in the feature race, you were then forced to start torward the back of the sprint race (because you qualified well), where you managed to pull off a 7th place in the end. So your points tally for the weekend only put you at 8th, which IMO shows that reversing the qualifying order most llikey only hurt you, and that qualifying well could have only been detrimental after not placing so well in the feature race.

Basically, this gets back to the point that the grid order for the sprint race should be based on points scored in the feature race...otherwise the attempt to level out the field and give everyone an equal oppurtunity in being competitive in terms of points scored (which is all that matters! Right?) is too hit or miss when using the reversed qualifying order for the sprint race.



Exactly 👍



Personally I think it should play a bigger part than it does. If we're going to bother with organizing qualifying in a rather serious way, shouldn't we actually have it means something? (in terms of at least being some type of benefit for a driver who is able to deliver when it counts).

Again, I completely agree. 👍

BUT - I can work with either. In qualifying, I ran as fast as I thought reasonably possible without risk of crash, to make sure I got into D1. Now this race at Spa, well, qualifying doesn't mean much at Spa, almost ever.

I favor reversing the finishing order, to me it's more logical, less exploitable, etc. But I can work with either, as long as I know what the system is.

I very much agree that qualifying has lost a lot of it's merit this way though. It's tied to being locked in a division. If a bad qualifying session put you into D2 for the week, Qualifying would regain meaning.

So to me it's a mixed issue, either keeping the reversed qualifying order (in the division) and opening each week's qualifying so anybody can go into either division based on their qualifying, or keep the divisional system and change to reverse grid finishing order.

If the last bit doesn't make sense I'll put it in a longer more detailed manner.

In any case, I can work with whatever, as long as I know what the system is. Of course, the current system will certainly lead to "alternative qualifying methods" for some, at some times. Maybe even me.


EDIT:
Aderrrm is actually a good example of how to start close to the front in race 1, and win both.
I'm a good example of doing the opposite, all from only 1 real mistake. (second race was destroyed by other things too though, mainly being damaged twice)

This is why I say either system can work.

 

[SuperSic]

Crystal-clear points by Brock. I admire your courage brother..

 

[CSLACR]

Anyone have any Spa times to share?

 

[Dr_Watson]

I very much agree that qualifying has lost a lot of it's merit this way though. It's tied to being locked in a division. If a bad qualifying session put you into D2 for the week, Qualifying would regain meaning.

I'm still a fan of that. Makes qualifying a lot more interesting if you have to win your spot every week.

 

[GV27]

^ That would be a good idea. This way we also eliminate the whole algorithm that had to be used every two races, in order to see who makes it to D1 and D2.

It also makes it more fair, in my honest (and modest) opinion.

 

[TheMinion]

I very much agree that qualifying has lost a lot of it's merit this way though. It's tied to being locked in a division. If a bad qualifying session put you into D2 for the week, Qualifying would regain meaning.

So to me it's a mixed issue, either keeping the reversed qualifying order (in the division) and opening each week's qualifying so anybody can go into either division based on their qualifying, or keep the divisional system and change to reverse grid finishing order.

Very good sugestion.

 

[Imari]

So far it's a theoretical problem at best though. Can we give the organisers the benefit of the doubt and see how it rolls out? If there ends up being a problem, I'm sure it will be fixed.

 

[The Outlaw]

At the end of the day, I must step back and say I don't really care that much regarding the decision of this issue. As we all know, everyone is playing by the same set of rules and can use the same tactics....however undermining it may be, particularly to the true meaning of qualifying (which is what I don't like really). To an extent, we've seen similarly strange/undermining (to the show and fans) tactics used in F1 quite often this year with the new Pirreli tires - where say two mid pack teams (4 drivers) of very similar pace make it to Q3, but only two of the teams decide to actually go out and set a time in Q3 using an extra set of rubber, while the other team decides to just sit in the garage and accept that they will be behind the other team on the starting grid, but with an extra set of fresh rubber (which is often just as important for the race as qualifying a place or 2 up the grid). More often than not, neither teams is really at a disadvantage or an advantage...it's just a matter of deciding which strategy you want to play by in the closing moments of Q3.

BUT - I can work with either. In qualifying, I ran as fast as I thought reasonably possible without risk of crash, to make sure I got into D1. Now this race at Spa, well, qualifying doesn't mean much at Spa, almost ever.

I favor reversing the finishing order, to me it's more logical, less exploitable, etc. But I can work with either, as long as I know what the system is..

I totally agree here

I very much agree that qualifying has lost a lot of it's merit this way though. It's tied to being locked in a division. If a bad qualifying session put you into D2 for the week, Qualifying would regain meaning..

To an extent, although a fast driver can still wait until right before the deadline, and sandbag it a bit in order to a get a spot in the middle of the grid for both races...so I think the issue is still there to a large degree. But as I said before, it's the same rules for everyone, so if qualifying is going to have little importance for the races, then so be it. Also, we may find that purposely aiming for say a 3rd place on the grid for the feature race, may well be better than aiming for pole and having to start in the very back for the sprint race. This is simply due to the fact that in the feature race you have much more time and leniancy in strategy to regain those 2 positions.

So to me it's a mixed issue, either keeping the reversed qualifying order (in the division) and opening each week's qualifying so anybody can go into either division based on their qualifying, or keep the divisional system and change to reverse grid finishing order.

As you probably know by now, I'm a fan of reversing the grid based on the finishing order from the feature race, as the other method still has its flaws in terms of undermining the importance of qualifying, at least IMO. More importantly, reversing the grid order based on qualifying results is all an attempt to level the playing field so that we don't see large discrepencies in the points standings (correct?)...the only problem is, the current format ignores the fact that points aren't handed out for qualifying - which IMO is a good reason showing why the current leveling system is a bit flawed.

Lastly, reversing the grid order based on finishing order doesn't really have any negative that I'm aware of (that's at least any worse than the scenarios/consequences we can have when reversing the qualy order), so I'm not really sure why it's too late to switch to that. I don't really buy into the argument that reversing the qualifying order makes it any easier for the host either, as it can potentially only make things more difficult when there are drivers who DC in the feature race (I think tat happened to El_Alien last round) and aren't around for the sprint race - thus everyone who was assigned starting positions behind these missing drivers must be aware of this before the sprint race is underway.

 

[RIP_Welsh_Don]

Anyone have any Spa times to share?

2'14.2xx so far with the stealth NSX. Should be able to get into the 13's comfortably though, once I put some decent sessions together.

 

[Denilson]

As I said Brock, I agree with you.
But I think it's better to stick with the current format since that's what we used in round 1..

And there's points for pole (3), 2nd (2) and 3rd (1).. So there's still a better option to do your best when qualifying..
If someone is confident enough to quali slow in order to get a better startingpossition for the sprint race, it's totally up to the individual..

 

[GV27]

2:13...!! I'm on high 15 and unlikely to go faster...

 

[The Outlaw]

As I said Brock, I agree with you.
But I think it's better to stick with the current format since that's what we used in round 1..

That's just fine mate, and I respect your decision.

And there's points for pole (3), 2nd (2) and 3rd (1).. So there's still a better option to do your best when qualifying..If someone is confident enough to quali slow in order to get a better starting possition for the sprint race, it's totally up to the individual..

I'm a bit disapointed that this crucial bit of info (points for the top 3 qualifiers) wasn't brought up earlier though...because in all honesty we probably wouldn't have needed this 2 page long discussion This info was neither posted in the OP, nor evident from the qualy results/points standings page from the previous round (which I don't understand why)...as neither of the top 3 qualifiers were awarded points.

I don't mean to be overly hard on you, but it would be nice to be aware of such rather crucial facts before the season is underway.

Regardless, I think this (top 3 qualifiers awarded points) will just about resolve the qualifying problem we had before, and actually award a strong qualifying performance with something meaningful, instead of just intentionally sending them to the complete other end of the grid for the 2nd race...so I think everyone who's a fair sport (and who wants to see qualy actually mean something) should be happy for this decision 👍

 

[Denilson]

I don't think you're beeing hard on me at all.

I appologize for the lack of information..
All rules and point systems are 100% decided.. It's just the small detail that we forgot to include them in the PM.. Sorry.

So when reading the PM, I can see that we forgot to include..
This:
3 fastest quali times will be awarded 3, 2 and 1 point.
3 fastest race laps will be awarded 3, 2 and 1 point.
No driver can earn more than 1 quali bonus, and 1 fastest lap, insureing that 3 drivers will recieve bonus in each category.

I hope that was all.
Sorry for the mistake.

 

[TheMinion]

Do we get points for fastest lap in D2? Or its overall D1 + D2 fastest lap?

 

[Paginas1]

Do we get points for fastest lap in D2? Or its overall D1 + D2 fastest lap?

overall I think minion

 

[CSLACR]

I don't think you're beeing hard on me at all.

I appologize for the lack of information..
All rules and point systems are 100% decided.. It's just the small detail that we forgot to include them in the PM.. Sorry.

So when reading the PM, I can see that we forgot to include..
This:
3 fastest quali times will be awarded 3, 2 and 1 point.
3 fastest race laps will be awarded 3, 2 and 1 point.
No driver can earn more than 1 quali bonus, and 1 fastest lap, insureing that 3 drivers will recieve bonus in each category.

I hope that was all.
Sorry for the mistake.

Very neat.👍

I won't lie, I like that it means I'm actually tied for 6th in points instead of being in 8th, even if it's only a 3 point swing.

 

[The Outlaw]

I don't think you're beeing hard on me at all.

I appologize for the lack of information..
All rules and point systems are 100% decided.. It's just the small detail that we forgot to include them in the PM.. Sorry.

No need to say sorry mate, it would have just been nice to see everything (regarding the regulations) out on the table before the Championship started

It's understandable things don't happen over night though, especially given how much time and effort you put into leveling the cars performance. It certainly takes a great level of commitment to organize such a Championship in total perfection, so I understand you don't always have time to get things done as quickly or as accurately as you may like.

With that said though, I think thing there have been a lot of "small details" like ballast penalties, points for the top 3 qualifiers, that should have been made clear and public before the Championship officially got underway...but it's really not that big of a deal tbh

So when reading the PM, I can see that we forgot to include..
This:
3 fastest quali times will be awarded 3, 2 and 1 point.
3 fastest race laps will be awarded 3, 2 and 1 point.
No driver can earn more than 1 quali bonus, and 1 fastest lap, insureing that 3 drivers will recieve bonus in each category.

I hope that was all.
Sorry for the mistake.

So, I take it there's a fastest lap for each race (feature & sprint)?

Also - I don't mean to cause a big debate again, but IMO handing out 3 points for the fastest outright race lap seems a bit over the top...mainly because the combined difference between a 1st and 2nd place in both races is only 3 points. I personally feel this kind of takes away from the prestige of fighting for the victory. But again, that's just my opinion...and I will not bother with arguing my side any further.

 

[CSLACR]

So, I take it there's a fastest lap for each race (feature & sprint)?

Also - I don't mean to cause a big debate again, but IMO handing out 3 points for the fastest outright race lap seems a bit over the top...mainly because the combined difference between a 1st and 2nd place in both races is only 3 points. I personally feel this kind of takes away from the prestige of fighting for the victory. But again, that's just my opinion...and I will not bother with arguing my side any further.

I think it adds a very neat aspect to the races. You could push for the fastest lap, but then you could push to far and ruin your race.

It is a bit much, but at the same time, fastest lap is no easier to achieve then pole.
On the scale of 80 points for winning both races, what's 3 points?

 

[Dr_Watson]

3 fastest quali times will be awarded 3, 2 and 1 point.
3 fastest race laps will be awarded 3, 2 and 1 point.
No driver can earn more than 1 quali bonus, and 1 fastest lap, insureing that 3 drivers will recieve bonus in each category.

Thanks for the info I'll have to bake those extra bonus points in.
I'll be doing some work on it after my Miata race tonight.

 

[CSLACR]

Thanks for the info I'll have to bake those extra bonus points in.
I'll be doing some work on it after my Miata race tonight.

The bonus points are getting baked tonight?!?!?!?

 

[Dr_Watson]

The bonus points are getting baked tonight?!?!?!?

Yeah, I need to code them so they're auto-magic.

I sprinkled them about where they belong in the database so the *real* race-day top 5 is:

Pos  Driver        Car/Team                        Points
1    Aderrrm       Honda ARTA NSX 06                   83
2    SuperSic      Nissan Calsonic IMPUL GT-R 08       72
3    bluesix       Honda RAYBRIG NSX 06                72
4    The Outlaw    Honda TAKATA DOME NSX 06            71
5    WiiFreak      Nissan GT-R GT500 STEALTH MODEL     69

I also fixed the ballast assignment to
Aderrm +60kg
SuperSic +40kg
bluesix +40kg

I assume we're giving the tie for 2nd both 2nd place weight.

 

[CSLACR]

Yeah, I need to code them so they're auto-magic.

I sprinkled them about where they belong in the database so the *real* race-day top 5 is:

Pos  Driver        Car/Team                        Points
1    Aderrrm       Honda ARTA NSX 06                   83
2    SuperSic      Nissan Calsonic IMPUL GT-R 08       72
3    bluesix       Honda RAYBRIG NSX 06                72
4    The Outlaw    Honda TAKATA DOME NSX 06            71
5    WiiFreak      Nissan GT-R GT500 STEALTH MODEL     69

I also fixed the ballast assignment to
Aderrm +60kg
SuperSic +40kg
bluesix +40kg

I assume we're giving the tie for 2nd both 2nd place weight.

Sounds proper to me.
Looks like TheOutlaw showed us how to just skim by not getting ballast, hopefully he can't manage that intentionally every week.

I just checked the PM, and we are missing one last bit, I believe, and this is how ballast is removed, or dropped.

 

[Dr_Watson]

Sounds proper to me.
Looks like TheOutlaw showed us how to just skim by not getting ballast, hopefully he can't manage that intentionally every week.

I just checked the PM, and we are missing one last bit, I believe, and this is how ballast is removed, or dropped.

Yeah, Wardez clarified that the day he sent the pm.
If you miss the podium you get -20kg.

 

[The Outlaw]

I think it adds a very neat aspect to the races. You could push for the fastest lap, but then you could push to far and ruin your race.

It is a bit much, but at the same time, fastest lap is no easier to achieve then pole.
On the scale of 80 points for winning both races, what's 3 points?

As I said before, it's the difference between winning both races or coming in 2nd in both races...which IMO shows that handing out 3 points for a fastest lap in one single race is rather controversial (since when was a fastest lap worth so much in racing?).

Although I think it's nice to award the driver who sets the fastest lap, I don't think it should be handed out like candy, particularly when it's worth so much because of the lack of points spread, particularly torward the top. It also has the potential to minimize strategy and make the races less intriuging, as drivers will likely be more keen to shoot for shorter stints and more stops to snag that fastest lap, instead of milking the tires for all their worth and running longer stints.

Sounds proper to me.
Looks like TheOutlaw showed us how to just skim by not getting ballast, hopefully he can't manage that intentionally every week.

Ah yes, I'm right where I need to be I'll let all the fast guys load themselves up with ~ 1 second worth of weight, so I can pounce on them later in the Championship when they're helpless and have a difficult time even making the podium jk

 

[CSLACR]

As I said before, it's the difference between winning both races or coming in 2nd in both races...which IMO shows that handing out 3 points for a fastest lap in one single race is rather controversial (since when was a fastest lap worth so much in racing?).

Although I think it's nice to award the driver who sets the fastest lap, I don't think it should be handed out like candy, particularly when it's worth so much because of the lack of points spread, particularly torward the top. It also has the potential to minimize strategy and make the races less intriuging, as drivers will likely be more keen to shoot for shorter stints and more stops to snag that fastest lap, instead of milking the tires for all their worth and running longer stints.



Ah yes, I'm right we're I need to be I'll let all the fast guys load themselves up with ~ 1 second worth of weight, so I can pounce on them later in the Championship when they're helpless jk

I ran an extra stop on race 1. It presumably cost me 4 positions, and also gave me the tread to run the fastest lap. (last pit was on 24, best lap on 26-27 I think)) So assuming all of that is correct (which I think it is) getting the fastest lap cost me 5 points.
Of course none of it was my plan, and was all based on improv, but I think it shows how making extra stops for best lap will most likely end up for people.

IDK, I agree it sounds like a lot, but being on the scale it is, I don't think it will be viable to aim for it.
I think it's fools gold laid out in trap, if I'm perfectly honest. Much like the qualifying bit, I certainly won't be planning my strategy based on getting the fastest lap, just like I wouldn't qualify at the back to start at the front of a less meaningful race.

Between the luck of nailing a lap good enough in this field, (which must surely be done later in the race), the risk of crashing shooting for it, and the high probability that an extra stop could cost you far more points then you can gain...Fools gold, if you ask me.

 

[The Outlaw]

I ran an extra stop on race 1. It presumably cost me 4 positions, and also gave me the tread to run the fastest lap. (last pit was on 24, best lap on 26-27 I think)) So assuming all of that is correct (which I think it is) getting the fastest lap cost me 5 points.
Of course none of it was my plan, and was all based on improv, but I think it shows how making extra stops for best lap will most likely end up for people..

Well, it sounds like you had an oddball race though (meaning you had to make an unscheduled stop torward the end of the race), forcing you to run a comprimised strategy...making the scenario a bit skewed to say the least. Also, in reality it's preety much impossible to calculate what making that extra stop cost you in the end, because there are variables that never took place (like what your pace would have actually been had you not made an extra stop, and what you could have done had you planned a 2 stopper from the get go), and all we have to base things on are assumptions (which generally aren't that accurate over a period of 10-15 laps) of what kept your from getting a 4th place and bunch more points, which was ~ only 6 seconds down the road at the end of the race.

So who knows, maybe if you had decided on a 2 (assuming that's what you did?) stopper from the beggining you could have placed better than you did, because you would have been able to maximizes the tires better throughout the race, while still having the potential to really hammer out the laps early in the stints to try and bag that FL 💡

IDK, I agree it sounds like a lot, but being on the scale it is, I don't think it will be viable to aim for it. I think it's fools gold laid out in trap, if I'm perfectly honest. Much like the qualifying bit, I certainly won't be planning my strategy based on getting the fastest lap, just like I wouldn't qualify at the back to start at the front of a less meaningful race.

Between the luck of nailing a lap good enough in this field, (which must surely be done later in the race), the risk of crashing shooting for it, and the high probability that an extra stop could cost you far more points then you can gain...Fools gold, if you ask me.

It's really all scenario based though, depending on the track/each cars tires wear characterstics/ how much ballast you're loaded up with/ and a drivers ability to run long stints while maintainingg the strongest pace possible. In some races where your only realistic/practical option is say a two stopper, than it's certainly not going to be wise/or make sense to go for a 3 stopper to try and snag a fastest lap, as you'll be set back to far in terms of on track position torward the end. On the other hand, when we run into scenarios where say a 1 or 2 stopper is a viable option (with no real clear benefit in terms of the results in the end), then it would more than likely be wise for people (particularly the fastest drivers) to just go for the same strategy to try and get that fastest lap, which can make all the difference when it comes to who wins the Championship. But in the end I shouldn't be making such a big deal of this I guess...as there are already so many variables in the Championship (between the cars, how ballast affects the different cars, tire wear, etc.) ...this issue is rather minascule in the big picture.

And I hate to sound redundent, but if we're going to place such importance/weight on the fastest lap...then so be it. I guess I'll just have to play my cards so that it benefits me the most...

 

[Denilson]

Dr_Watson: Yea, sorry mate.. I guess we did not tell you everything you had to know afterall, dispite our frequent PM conversations..

The Outlaw: Again, you put forth reasonable arguments.
And I don't think for a second that the set of rules we use is perfect.
In the end, we all race by the same rules, so the possibility to "exploit" the system is there for all.
All I know is that I will still try to quali as high as possible, and not plan my strategy to get the fastest lap in.

Fastest Laps:
Can come from either Division, and either race.

Quali Bonus:
I need to ask you guys for some feedback here.. Should we hand out the qualifying bonus exclusively for the D1 quali?
Or should the 3 fastest quali times no matter the Division be awarded bonus points?
Let's say D1 top 3 looks like:
1. 1:01.000
2. 1:03.000
3. 1:05.000
And D2 top 3 looks like:
1. 1:02.000
2. 1:04.000
3. 1:06.000
So in this case, 1st in D1, 2nd in D1 and 1st in D2 collects the quali bonus?

Which one do you prefer?

 

[The Outlaw]

The Outlaw: Again, you put forth reasonable arguments.
And I don't think for a second that the set of rules we use is perfect.
In the end, we all race by the same rules, so the possibility to "exploit" the system is there for all.
All I know is that I will still try to quali as high as possible, and not plan my strategy to get the fastest lap in.?

👍

Quali Bonus:
I need to ask you guys for some feedback here.. Should we hand out the qualifying bonus exclusively for the D1 quali?
Or should the 3 fastest quali times no matter the Division be awarded bonus points?
Let's say D1 top 3 looks like:
1. 1:01.000
2. 1:03.000
3. 1:05.000
And D2 top 3 looks like:
1. 1:02.000
2. 1:04.000
3. 1:06.000
So in this case, 1st in D1, 2nd in D1 and 1st in D2 collects the quali bonus?

Which one do you prefer?

I guess it really depends on how far you want to take the revolving door concept between the divisions. Because if you hand out points automatically to the top 3 qualifiers in D2, it's only going to increase the cycling of drivers between both divisions...which to some (particularly those who tend to float around the cut off) may be seen as a good or a bad thing.

It's really a hard call IMO, mainly because there is already an overlap (i.e. a driver can finish 4 places from last in the D1 feature race, but only score as much as the winner in D2, despite maybe having much better pace) in overall points between D1 & D2. Being that this is the case, I think the best thing to do might be to base the top 3 qualifiers from D2 on the bottom 3 of D1...and only award points to the guys who are quicker in D2? It's just a proposal of mine...haven't really thought about it too much to see if there are any glaring flaws though

 

[GV27]

3 fastest times, regardless of divisions, I'd say.