SNAIL Parity Racing Series - 86 GT/FR-S/BR-Z Night
- Thread starter Vol Jbolaz
- 427 comments
- 20,407 views
- 2,254
- Burlington, NC, USA
- a_garris/Vol_Jbolaz
It is just a 21 point swing in PP (7 increments). When the season starts rolling along, it'll start to make more sense. I don't remember, but when we did testing, I think everyone started at the bottom, and it started to level out rather quickly.
After the first race, the top quarter will go down by six points and the bottom quarter will go up by six points. After the first race, there will already be a 12 point difference. I think it will really start to show and things will find an equilibrium quickly.
Admittedly, the starting point could be more in the middle of the range, but I got to thinking... I don't want to keep penalizing the initial winners but so much. At the end of the season, I do want the better drivers to top the leaderboards. I just want the races to be closer and for every race to matter (don't want a points champion obvious by three-quarters through the season).
There were a couple rules we were playing with in testing that I haven't included. I'm not against them, we just didn't get to test without them, so I don't know that they are necessary. One of them was the idea that if you podium a race, then you are no longer eligible for a 2x increase in your PP. If you ever fall in the bottom of a race, you only get a 1x increase.
It is a short season, six races in three weeks, so we'll see how it goes and tweak things as needed.
Also, this Tuesday, anyone up for testing?
- 2,254
- Burlington, NC, USA
- a_garris/Vol_Jbolaz
Here is an interesting question...
Should we disallow TCS?
Way back when, I was tooling around in a Mine GT-R on Trial Mountain and found that I was notably faster around the course with TCS set to 0 (off) than with TCS set to 1.
There is currently a 400PP time trial seasonal event. I only had one car on hand at 400PP, so I used that one. Last I looked, I was the slowest of my friends for this one (I was handsomely mid-pack for the recent Kart Space TT). My car was a '71 Fairlady Z, so... whatchagonnado?
After I ran the time trail the first time (probably about 10 laps), I noticed that I had left the TCS at 1. So, I went back with TCS at 0. It was harder, I'll admit. That car isn't the most graceful, but I was able to put in a faster time.
I personally will run this series with TCS at 0, but I'm wondering, would it be helpful to others if they had the option to run TCS? These are going to be 30 minute races (and I'd like for them to be longer). Would it keep people from crashing as often if they had the option to use TCS?
Should we disallow TCS?
Way back when, I was tooling around in a Mine GT-R on Trial Mountain and found that I was notably faster around the course with TCS set to 0 (off) than with TCS set to 1.
There is currently a 400PP time trial seasonal event. I only had one car on hand at 400PP, so I used that one. Last I looked, I was the slowest of my friends for this one (I was handsomely mid-pack for the recent Kart Space TT). My car was a '71 Fairlady Z, so... whatchagonnado?
After I ran the time trail the first time (probably about 10 laps), I noticed that I had left the TCS at 1. So, I went back with TCS at 0. It was harder, I'll admit. That car isn't the most graceful, but I was able to put in a faster time.
I personally will run this series with TCS at 0, but I'm wondering, would it be helpful to others if they had the option to run TCS? These are going to be 30 minute races (and I'd like for them to be longer). Would it keep people from crashing as often if they had the option to use TCS?
- 2,254
- Burlington, NC, USA
- a_garris/Vol_Jbolaz
I'm up for it and I'll be online in a little while. If anyone wants to join us, 350 PP in my lounge.
- 2,254
- Burlington, NC, USA
- a_garris/Vol_Jbolaz
I've been sick the last few days. I need to get hopping on fleshing out the rest of the first post. I want to nail down the times over the evening and write out the staggered entry procedure. After the testing this week, I'm still a little iffy on at 12 PP swing each race.
But, a few things I do want to mention right now:
If you have not sent me a (a_garris) a friend request, please do. We will be racing in private lobbies, not public lounges.
One of the courses this season will be the Lemons Country Circuit built by Huyler. I should have it shared, so anyone who hasn't already can download it and practice on it.
This week when we were testing, we were sticking to the ten-year old rule, but... I see that I didn't put that in the first post. And I honestly don't mind if we use new cars. I think we already have a problem with the older Lupo/Polo/Beetle dominating the series with their very impressive torque. I'm not sure if there are any newer cars that can compete, but any objection to leaving it like it is and not having an age limit?
But, a few things I do want to mention right now:
If you have not sent me a (a_garris) a friend request, please do. We will be racing in private lobbies, not public lounges.
One of the courses this season will be the Lemons Country Circuit built by Huyler. I should have it shared, so anyone who hasn't already can download it and practice on it.
This week when we were testing, we were sticking to the ten-year old rule, but... I see that I didn't put that in the first post. And I honestly don't mind if we use new cars. I think we already have a problem with the older Lupo/Polo/Beetle dominating the series with their very impressive torque. I'm not sure if there are any newer cars that can compete, but any objection to leaving it like it is and not having an age limit?
chuyler1
Premium
- 4,548
- New Hampshire
- chuyler1
Since it is apparent that newer FF cars are the dominant species, I guess dropping the age requirement isn't that big of a deal. At 350pp, there really isn't much to choose from.
As for the pp swing, you might be able to increase the overall gap by one more increment and also increase the increments to 4pp instead of 3pp.
338-342-346-350-354-358-362-[366]
I added the 366 as an option for drivers really struggling. As for who moves and who stays at their level...that all depends on how many participants we have. I think drivers should only move in increments of one, and the field should be split so some go down, some stay the same, and some go up. The only circumstance where drivers should move by more than one increment would be if they are really struggling or they are too slow because of their car, not because of accidents.
As for the pp swing, you might be able to increase the overall gap by one more increment and also increase the increments to 4pp instead of 3pp.
338-342-346-350-354-358-362-[366]
I added the 366 as an option for drivers really struggling. As for who moves and who stays at their level...that all depends on how many participants we have. I think drivers should only move in increments of one, and the field should be split so some go down, some stay the same, and some go up. The only circumstance where drivers should move by more than one increment would be if they are really struggling or they are too slow because of their car, not because of accidents.
- 7,284
- Inverness, Scotland
- GTP_PaulMac/paulmac2k9
The way it could be is
All start at 350PP then from there after the first race:
1st-3rd Less PP (347PP)
4th-8th Same PP (350PP)
9th and below More PP (353PP)
All depends on how many show for each race but I think 2 down and 2 up is too much since even with one there would be atleast 6PP between fastest and slowest.
Im also thinking about joining, im free on Tuesdays but I got college on Wednesday so cant be up too late, so I just need to know the rough time for GMT.
Edit: Thanks dabneyd, checked the OP again and how I missed that ive no idea
. Oh well that rules me out sorry 
.
All start at 350PP then from there after the first race:
1st-3rd Less PP (347PP)
4th-8th Same PP (350PP)
9th and below More PP (353PP)
All depends on how many show for each race but I think 2 down and 2 up is too much since even with one there would be atleast 6PP between fastest and slowest.
Im also thinking about joining, im free on Tuesdays but I got college on Wednesday so cant be up too late, so I just need to know the rough time for GMT.
Edit: Thanks dabneyd, checked the OP again and how I missed that ive no idea
. Oh well that rules me out sorry .
Last edited:
- 3,073
- Charlottesville
- dabneyd
- deadguy79
0300 GMT. I gave to put something else here, or there are no capital letters.
Last edited:
- 2,254
- Burlington, NC, USA
- a_garris/Vol_Jbolaz
Okay, I had 20:00 Eastern in the first post when I meant to have 22:00 Eastern (which is 0300 GMT).
Just two days, and this is still a massive experiment. I hope it all goes well. I've updated the first post. We need to start at 21:45. And you can't be late.
Mind you, I'll probably be online more like 21:00, and anyone is welcome to join me.
Just two days, and this is still a massive experiment. I hope it all goes well. I've updated the first post. We need to start at 21:45. And you can't be late.
Mind you, I'll probably be online more like 21:00, and anyone is welcome to join me.
- 2,254
- Burlington, NC, USA
- a_garris/Vol_Jbolaz
- 591
- Easley, SC
- spooble
Ok, so I've found a few cars that I like, but I need a rule clarification. In the first post you state that the max detuning is to 97%, and max ballast is 40kg. Does that mean that our car should be able to hit the lowest possible pp (344) at those settings? Or do we just need to be able to hit 350 with those settings, and we're allowed to use more detuning and/or ballast if we need to drop lower? I don't think I'll actually ever drop below 350pp, but just in case. 
- 2,254
- Burlington, NC, USA
- a_garris/Vol_Jbolaz
Lowest values with those settings.
And I honestly wasn't imagining people needing to use those settings to get to 344. The only reason for including that was...
Say you have a car at 350. And you lose a race and you are allowed 353 PP for the next race. You install a part but it pushes you up to 354. So you add a little weight or tune the engine down a touch to get to 353.
This is the first time, so we'll have to see how things go. I'm a little nervous about the car you are considering. I'm imagining their are some bugs to work out of this.
And I honestly wasn't imagining people needing to use those settings to get to 344. The only reason for including that was...
Say you have a car at 350. And you lose a race and you are allowed 353 PP for the next race. You install a part but it pushes you up to 354. So you add a little weight or tune the engine down a touch to get to 353.
This is the first time, so we'll have to see how things go. I'm a little nervous about the car you are considering. I'm imagining their are some bugs to work out of this.
chuyler1
Premium
- 4,548
- New Hampshire
- chuyler1
A better way to do this is require the car be at 350 or less after an engine refresh but with no parts installed and no ballast/power-reduction. If it sits at 350 with no parts, it will drop to 344 without any trouble.
But with that said, I found a few cars that sat at 352 which would meet the requirements. None were worth driving though.
But with that said, I found a few cars that sat at 352 which would meet the requirements. None were worth driving though.
- 72
- SoCal
- GeezerG123
- 2,254
- Burlington, NC, USA
- a_garris/Vol_Jbolaz
- 2,254
- Burlington, NC, USA
- a_garris/Vol_Jbolaz
I've published the spreadsheet.
