Method of Racing Discussion

[Arrow.]

Hey a few suggestions have come up about the method of racing here are some options

1.
20mins Qualifying
1Hour race

2.
Endurance Rounds 1 hour Extra points
Fern Bay Black - GTR
Kyoto Ring Long - F08
Westhill International - XFR/UFR
South City Town - MRT

Sprint Rounds
20mins qualifying, qualifying position, reverse grid, ??? (not sure), 10laps each
Aston North - TBO
Aston Grand Touring Reverse - FOX
Kyoto Ring Long - F08
Westhill International - XFR/UFR
Fern Bay Black - GTR
Fern Bay Green Reverse - LRF
Kyoto Ring National Reverse - XFG/XRG

3.
20mins qualifying, qualifying position, reverse grid, ??? (not sure), 10 laps each

[jamesrowe]

3.
Sounds about the best I think :)

[Tweaker]

Sprint rounds really don't prove much, because if a driver can last 10 laps or so, there aren't many other factors that come into play during a sprint race.

You should mix up the calendar with several sprint race sessions, and several 1-hour race sessions. Basically make each race-day about an 1h 30mins each.

So you could have the calendar split up with different methods of racing like so:

Month 1:
4-6 Sprint Rounds (have two sprint sessions per month, 2-3 sprints each meet)
20mins qualifying, qualifying position, reverse grid, ??? (not sure), 10laps each (or something that lasts 15-30 mins)
Pick your car/track combo for each, I don't know what you'd want.


1 Endurance Round for extra points (at the end of the month, good idea for extra points, encourages teams to finish)
20mins qualifying, qualifying position, one long race
Pick your car/track combo for each, I don't know what you'd want. At least make sure the cars are best for endurance racing.

Month 2, 3, 4....?:

Repeat the same as Month 1.... and so on for more months.

------------------------------

Doing this would give you some good options between the sprint racing and the endurance racing. If you REALLY wanted it to make it a longer race, having a 2 hour race would be better, but I guess not many have that much time. But you should encourage driver swaps for the endurance racing... it's a must. That would mean that in the Endurance races, would you have only 1 car per team, and then driver swaps? You could have 2 cars/team and have the team use 4 drivers I guess (2 drivers per car). Would be really interesting, because with only 2 meetings for several sprint races, teams would need to prepare for the endurance race at the END of the month. (Basically make the sprint racing for the first two weeks of the month, then the endurance race for the last week (just a 2 week break/preparation period))

The Sprint racing should be quick combos, and definitely use reverse grid for the final sprint round of the meeting.

So if your series last for something like 4 months, that would mean you'd have 16 sprint races (8 sprint meetings), and 4 endurance races. That is if you do only 2 sprint races per meeting. If you did 3 short sprint races a meeting, you'd have 24 sprint races (8 sprint meetings), and 4 endurance races. If you do 3 short sprint races per meeting (more desirable), then make it so that if you get 1st place in all 3 races, those cumulative points are not as many points as a 1st place in the endurance race. Well I wont go into the points system, that is something to figure out later. But for now, this is my idea for the race calendar.

[PaulC2K]

Yeah, thats kinda what i was suggesting a couple of days ago, similar setup to the V8 supercar series, where they dont stick to 1 fixed race meeting style but mix it up a little.

The V8 Series is largely made up of 3-race rounds, with a couple of 2-race rounds and a pair of 1-race rounds.
This is something I am considering speaking to the guys in our team about possibly organising, Saloon car racing with mixed style weekends, a series that doesnt have completely different cars each round but isnt the same fixed cars week in week out either. (ie TBO / XFR+UFR / GTR)


I definately agree with the idea of keeping everything planned round a 90min window, personally i dont mind how long it goes on for but plenty do.

Keep qualifying to something reasonable, it shouldnt be 1/3 of the whole event. 20min sounds fine.

DEFINATELY no 'X laps' plastered onto all rounds, if a lap takes X seconds then figure out how many laps you'd do in however long races should be and take it to the nearest 5th lap. I can understand fixed minute races (converted to laps for the races) but not a fixed number of laps like last season's 50 laps, we had round 1 lasting about 45min and then round 6? (GTRs) which was just over 2hrs and its too hard to find enough suitable combos for the rule without ruling out the longer tracks at Aston, Kyoto and Fern Bay.

Any reversed grid racing needs to have either a good enough reason to push for the best finishes possible in previous races to avoid the possibility of people intentionally driving to start on pole for the next race, whether its less points or only reversing the first X finishers. The idea of reversed grids is to spice things up a bit, it shouldnt be there for people to decide they're not going to get the result they thought they could get and have a better chance if they start on pole/at the front for the next race. It should improve the slower drivers chances of finishing better, but not significantly IMO, just give them a head start and not be something people decide to abuse because they'll score better by doing it.

Dont agree on sprint race rounds being worth less than endurance rounds, they take the same length of time to practice for, same time and effort to acheive, and should have same points for doing so.
If single sprint races each placing is spread by say 10pts then endurance should be 30 (if theres 3 sprints), meaning that winning is worth 30pts more than coming 2nd, thats the real difference, not the amount of points you get, but the amount you get more/less than others. IMO every round is worth the same, it keeps the value of things equal.

[BenjiMC]

2 seems best to me

[r4ptor]

I'm with #1 and 2.

Sprint races are a bit waste of time IMO - especially with reversed grid.

[PaulC2K]

I'm with #1 and 2.

Sprint races are a bit waste of time IMO - especially with reversed grid.
Unless im very much mistaken (which is quite possible, the aim of this thread isnt really that clear nor are what the options actually intend) #2 is part endurance, part sprint race (thus reversed grid racing included).

For what its worth, 'sprint races' if there were 3 races in the 60-70min 'racing window' of the event would be 20min a peice.
IMO for sprint racing its stupid using predominantly long tracks tracks and fixed 10 laps, I'd have thought short/medium sided tracks so 15+ laps could be done (small tracks for slower cars, medium for mid-pace, leaving the 'epic' cars to the endurance racing on the big tracks with the long straights so you can utilise the full range of tracks available in LFS) would have given plenty of action, and considering the average race (IRL and virtual) seems to be decided after half a dozen laps we'd see more close racing than watching 20+ cars spread out over 60min.

For the record im not a huge fan of reversed grid, in the real world maybe, and with a grid you can trust without having doubts it could be very exciting, but it does appear to be very tricky to find the balance between true entertainment and 'circus standard entertainment'. The intention is to create closely fought scraps and drivers coming through the pack, the sad reality seems to be partial chaos with cars going off in all directions more often than not. I dont object to racing in them, theres the romantic hope of making perfect moves and coming through the pack to take the win, but typically things often fall short of that (FAR short of that if im at the wheel ;)) and its quite often frustraiting when you've had a decent race and the reverse race turns a little 'mickey mouse' under the name of entertaining racing instead of possibly another good clean race (maybe duller, but probably more people satisfied with the result)


Each to his own though, single races was the basis of how the series was formed and that hasnt done it any harm has it :) :thumb:

[Davo]

20mins qualifying and 3 races = qualifying position, reverse grid, reverse grid. Rounds 20 minutes each, however many laps that equals on that combo. So you get1 hour of racing all up plus qualifying.

Then as tweak suggested have an endurance race every few rounds. Perhaps at first only 1 hour long without driver swaps and make the final race 4 hours long and an enduro with driver swaps.

[r4ptor]

#2 is part endurance, part sprint race (thus reversed grid racing included).

Bugger... I was too fast to notice that :P


For the record im not a huge fan of reversed grid, in the real world maybe, and with a grid you can trust without having doubts it could be very exciting, but it does appear to be very tricky to find the balance between true entertainment and 'circus standard entertainment'.

Agreed, however I mostly don't like reversed grid in sprints because a driver doesn't always have to be much faster - maybe he is even a bit slower, but can still defend his position. It could work with longer races, but with only 10 laps, its imo too short to really mean anything.

And yes, slower drivers ahead of you will make it even more problematic to go for a win with such a low amount of laps.

[PaulC2K]

same here, but apparently that easily gets interpreted into 'whine whine whine, i cant pass backmarkers, whine whine, make it easy and boring please' to many people. ;)

[Arni Arnason]

One thing is also a possibility, like the Unity team from Denmark does it, one sprint race and reverse grid in the main race. That is good fun, i race there a lot.
They have a superpole , you have 2. laps, one out lap and then qualy lap,F1 style a few years ago, but that takes too long for a race with many drivers.

just a thought.:)

[Tweaker]

A superpole would be cool, only give a chance for 1 flying lap in qualifying. You wouldn't need to do them one by one, just make it a 20 minute session, and each driver/team chooses when they can go out judging by how clear the track is so they can get a good lap :). Would be cool to see more strategy rather than this free-for-all style most leagues have.

I agree also on making sprint races a bit longer.... something that at least lasts 20-25 mins. Then have a 5 minute break period, and do another sprint race with reversed grid. Reversed grid is fine if you develop the points structure in a way that the majority get their fair share of points. Points should be given from 1st through 10th. People purposely wanting to retire so they can start in front for a reversed grid is just a bad idea if you think about it... you'd lose more opportunities for points if you did that. If the person is the fastest overall and they start on the front row due to reversed grid dnf, then the amount of points for 1st place shouldn't be greater than a decent combined points result from the 2 races.

Say the 1st-10th points are like this for each sprint race: (12 10 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1) (just an example). If you got 4th place in the 1st race (7pts), and 5th place in the 2nd race (6), that'd be 13 points. The issue is, how big the grids will be, and how hard it would be to fight up to the front in a sprint race. Usually in 10 laps or so, it isn't always that hard if you are on the pace, so my example here is something that could really happen. If you had 1st place (12pts) and then fought back and got a podium finish, you'd get a very good sum of points. If someone just DNFs and opts to try and win 1st place in the 2nd round, that is just too much to risk, and hardly that much of a gain.

But I do agree that it could be missused. If the points were even consistent of just 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, then the whole 'dnf strategy' would be useless. You could have those points, but give bonus points for Laps Led, Fastest Lap, and Highest Climber (specifically FOR reversed grid starts so you can try to earn more). If you had a highest climber bonus point (say 2pts), that would encourage everyone to be given a good reward for a those that start in the back of the grid, rather than the people that just opt to start in front due to a DNF (The penalty would be greater for them).

Anyways, enough about points. I still stand by my idea that you should do several sprint races a month, and do one endurance race at the end of that month also.

Teams aren't truly shown in their variety of skill with a few measly sprint races, you need to do some endurance races to show who is prepared. And no Paul, an endurance race takes FAR MORE preparation for the setup then a sprint race setup. If the endurance race takes into account that the tires should wear and you need to make a pitstop before they blow, then setup development takes a lot longer... because you have to drive the distance each time you test. So a 2 week intermission before the endurance race would be nice for all the teams I think.

Hope the decisions for the next season are good, I'd be interested to see what the final decision is.

[PaulC2K]

They also have the potential to be extremely quiet, uneventful races where for the most part theres no pressure or closely fought racing.
Sprint races are short tight racing, no time to wait and follow for a dozen laps incase something happens, no hoping that strategies come into play.

They're both perfect examples of top level racing series, one relies more on consistancy and planning, the other relies on instinct and being able to make a move when you need to while side-by-side with close pack racing. Who's to say which is the harder and should be rewarded most. The V8 Supercar series is the only series i know of which runs mixed format racing, they have 1 point system, and thats divided by the number of races held that round, so a wins worth 360/180/120 or something like that. I cant think of an example of a series IRL that has any kind of bonus points round/s at any stage, but then most series are pretty sterile with flat formats.

[r4ptor]

I love the super pole idea - tried it myself a year ago in my very first league participation (Summer Cup me thinks) and missed it ever since.

It's way more thrilling asdrivers have to show what they can do here and now - but I don't think going out whenever you want is the best idea - it has to be organized, otherwise league organizers would/could have to watch replays to make sure everyone qualified as they should - something like letting in drivers with 20 secs of interval, until first car gets close to beginning the actual lap would be better - and then repeat it again ones the final driver crosses the line etc.

[Arrow.]

Ok, hows this sound

10-15mins Qualifying session. then top 10 shootout

Endurance Rounds 1-4(???) hour
double points from one sprint race
Fern Bay Black - GTR
Kyoto Ring Long - F08
Westhill International - XFR/UFR
South City Town - MRT

Sprint Rounds
Race 1: Qualifying position, Race 2 Reverse grid
Aston North - TBO
Aston Grand Touring Reverse - FOX
Kyoto Ring Long - F08
Westhill International - XFR/UFR
Fern Bay Black - GTR
Fern Bay Green Reverse - LRF
Kyoto Ring National Reverse - XFG/XRG

[[DUcK]]

Ok, hows this sound

10-15mins Qualifying session. then top 10 shootout

Endurance Rounds 1-4(???) hour
double points from one sprint race
Fern Bay Black - GTR
Kyoto Ring Long - F08
Westhill International - XFR/UFR
South City Town - MRT

Sprint Rounds
Race 1: Qualifying position, Race 2 Reverse grid
Aston North - TBO
Aston Grand Touring Reverse - FOX
Kyoto Ring Long - F08
Westhill International - XFR/UFR
Fern Bay Black - GTR
Fern Bay Green Reverse - LRF
Kyoto Ring National Reverse - XFG/XRG



HELLA YEAS!!!!!!!!
thats haulin josh :thumb:

[PaulC2K]

Why the hell would you want to do an endurance race with the MRT!?! Its a autox car people tollerated on tracks because it was the only single seater back in S1.

Im not a huge fan of wasting time qualifying instead of racing, and in my mind anything that you can do in 10-15min to get a top 10 is good enough to decide the race start order, instead you have the likes of a shootout which adds about 10min more onto it all. I'd rather see that time used racing, where things actually count for something instead of having 2/3 of the grid sitting round waiting for others to do 2 laps


Also, why run sprint races and Endurances with the same configs?
Fern Bay Black - GTR
Kyoto Ring Long - F08
Westhill International - XFR/UFR
They're being run twice? Sprint and Endurance... why?? (WE1R is far better than WE1, WE1R FTW!!)

[Arrow.]

Sorry it should be this
10-15mins Qualifying session. then top 10 shootout

Endurance Rounds 1-4(???) hour
double points from one sprint race
Fern Bay Black - GTR
Kyoto Ring Long - F08
Westhill International - XFR/UFR

Sprint Rounds
Race 1: Qualifying position, Race 2 Reverse grid
Aston North - TBO
Aston Grand Touring Reverse - FOX
Kyoto Ring Long - F08
Fern Bay Green Reverse - LRF
Kyoto Ring National Reverse - XFG/XRG

[Kaw]

Sorry it should be this
10-15mins Qualifying session. then top 10 shootout

Endurance Rounds 1-4(???) hour
double points from one sprint race
Fern Bay Black - GTR
Kyoto Ring Long - F08
Westhill International - XFR/UFR

Sprint Rounds
Race 1: Qualifying position, Race 2 Reverse grid
Aston North - TBO
Aston Grand Touring Reverse - FOX
Kyoto Ring Long - F08
Fern Bay Green Reverse - LRF
Kyoto Ring National Reverse - XFG/XRG


How come theres no Blackwood ?

[PaulC2K]

No Blackwood or South City

AS x2
KY x3
FE x2
WE x1

Love Ky Long, but why is it there twice, and both times with the crappy FO8?

Wheres the South City & Blackwood configs, BL1 is the home of LFS, not having that track in there is just plain wrong.

I'd also question GTRs @ FE Black, the GTR round should be somewhere like Kyoto Long or Blackwood, a true racing track not somewhere like Fern Bay which is a clubmans track, IRL it wouldnt get any sort of prestigious event, it'd get the run of the mill stuff, the TBO, LRF, XFG/XRG type stuff.

The cars need to fit in with the tracks they're racing on IMO.

[Arrow.]

whoops again :schwitz:

Endurance Rounds 1-4(???) hour
double points from one sprint race
Blackwood GP - GTR
Kyoto Ring Long - F08
Westhill International - XFR/UFR

Sprint Rounds
Race 1: Qualifying position, Race 2 Reverse grid
South City Town - MRT
Aston North - TBO
Aston Grand Touring Reverse - FOX
Fern Bay Green Reverse - LRF
Kyoto Ring National Reverse - XFG/XRG

[jamesrowe]

whoops again :schwitz:

Endurance Rounds 1-4(???) hour
double points from one sprint race
Blackwood GP - GTR
Kyoto Ring Long - F08
Westhill International - XFR/UFR

Sprint Rounds
Race 1: Qualifying position, Race 2 Reverse grid
South City Town - MRT
Aston North - TBO
Aston Grand Touring Reverse - FOX
Fern Bay Green Reverse - LRF
Kyoto Ring National Reverse - XFG/XRG
Looking better! Much better! :D
I think one or two hours for the endurance.

[[DUcK]]

whoops again :schwitz:

Endurance Rounds 1-4(???) hour
double points from one sprint race
Blackwood GP - GTR
Kyoto Ring Long - F08
Westhill International - XFR/UFR

Sprint Rounds
Race 1: Qualifying position, Race 2 Reverse grid
South City Town - MRT
Aston North - TBO
Aston Grand Touring Reverse - FOX
Fern Bay Green Reverse - LRF
Kyoto Ring National Reverse - XFG/XRG

much better.
i have a boner.

[niall09]

TBH, i dont think that the endurance race should be up to 4 hours, i would think maybe max 2 hours because racing for too long - you can get fairly bored of it :shrug: but all the other ones are good :) :thumb:

[Arrow.]

What do you all think of the top 10 shootout suggestion?

[niall09]

is that like what they have in F1? i think it would be a great idea :)

[[DUcK]]

good suggestion.. proves that their pole lap wasnt a fluke or whatev..
also i agree, enduro shouldnt be 4 hours.. that would just take it up the shitter tbh. 1 - 1.30 hours is more than enough for lfs. if we want enduro then join MoE or start another enduro, rather bott.
kthxbai

[niall09]

yes

[[DUcK]]

yes
:thumbsup:

[jamesrowe]

I totally agree!

The top ten shoot out is a great idea, would make it great fun. It is also something for the lower end teams like Fusion to aim to get into the top ten!:razz:

[[DUcK]]

u will get urs one day... u just wait... *shakes first*
:D

[Arrow.]

What do you all think of this format?

Endurance Rounds
double points from one sprint race
Qualfying: 20mins, Top ten shoot-out
Blackwood GP - GTR 60laps
Kyoto Ring Long - F08 40laps
Westhill International - XFR/UFR 40laps

Sprint Rounds
Race 1: Qualifying position, Race 2: Reverse grid 15laps each
Qualfying: 20mins
South City Town - MRT
Aston North - TBO
Aston Grand Touring Reverse - FOX
Fern Bay Green Reverse - LRF
Kyoto Ring National Reverse - XFG/XRG

[[DUcK]]

sounds frickin' schweeeeeeet.

[N I K I]

Endurance Rounds
double points from one sprint race
Qualfying: 20mins, Top ten shoot-out

can you explain this top ten shoot-out


double points from one sprint race

i don't understand this, is that double points for enduro rounds?

Sprint Rounds
Race 1: Qualifying position, Race 2: Reverse grid 15laps each
Qualfying: 20mins


I'd like to suggest that this reverse grid be only for top 8th finishers in 1st race!

[Arrow.]

can you explain this top ten shoot-ou

i don't understand this, is that double points for enduro rounds?




From the first Qualifying session then top 10 drivers have a "shoot out" but only 1 lap. position 10th driver (from qualifying) goes out does a lap, position 9th driver goes out does a lap, 8th driver goes out does a lap ect. so basicly you can move from 10th to 1st or 1st to 10th

Doubles points of a Single sprint race

[[DUcK]]

explained very well there fatty :D
just incase u dont get it, all drivers that are in the top 10 after qualify, get another session. but only one lap, a hotlap or flying lap.
the driver who qualified 10th in the first qualifying enters the track first, does one warm up lap, then a flying lap, then driving who qualified 9th on the free qualifying does theirs and so on. if u make a mistake on ur hotlap, bad luck, no 2nd chances. its basically to prove that their lap wasnt a fluke, and u can have a 2nd shot at qualifying.
hope that clears it up (we run the same thing in v8 supercars, and its been very interesting and entertaing for us for the past few years, it rox)
:D

[N I K I]

looks very interesting, top 10 shout out :thumb:

and what about reverse grid? is it going to be whole feald reverse or just top 8 or some other number of cars?

[[DUcK]]

yeah full reverse grid.
top 10 shootout will rox!

[PaulC2K]

not more full grid reverse starts :(
If you deserved to be at the front of the grid then chances are you'd bloody be there, and if by some great miricle you didnt end up there then surely you dont need to start well ahead of the people your a match for because you sucked in the first race.

Partical grid reversal i can understand, but full is just stupid IMO, especially if your going to be offering the same points for both races.

Also, the shoot-out, im hoping more than 1 car will be on track at a time, ie 5, or at very least one car per sector, because if its a 1min lap then thats 2min per driver for a rapid outlap and flying lap, 10 times is 20min, i'd sure as hell have no interest in sitting around for 20min or 18min if i'd made the shoot-out having spent about 20min qualifying already just so we can actually get the racing bit started!

"The Event length will be roughly (1.5hours - 2Hours)"
That'd be 40/50min qualifying and 40/50 - 70/80 min racing.

Its all good and well saying stuff works for V8s and its dead good, but im betting there race day(s) arent a total of 90-120min long and 1/2-1/3 of it taken up by dicking about with qualifying.
If it was done over 2 days then fair enough like IRL, fanny about with things like that, but considering we have a short window in which to actually use, why is so much being wasted for qualifying and yet more qualifying is beyond me.

[germanpio]

If we use reversed grid then I think Top 8 would be enough.

I fully support the Shoot-Out! It would run like this (http://pod.omnicurator.de/users/pio/lfs/eps10_race14_q.mpr). In that way it doesn't take much time. :) The qualifying itself could take only 15 minutes. I'm fine with the rest.

[Arrow.]

If we use reversed grid then I think Top 8 would be enough.

I fully support the Shoot-Out! It would run like this (http://pod.omnicurator.de/users/pio/lfs/eps10_race14_q.mpr). In that way it doesn't take much time. :) The qualifying itself could take only 15 minutes. I'm fine with the rest.

The problem is the qualifying goes first then the top ten shootout
just wondering how we can get it too work with out setting up race positions after top ten shootout ..

[germanpio]

The only way is /end after the shoot-out and to do it manually.:shrug:

[N I K I]

top 10 shoutout is going to cost us 30 minutes! Have you guys thinked about quali like in F1 and DTM? 3 periods.... best drivers goes to next round...

[traxxion]

top 10 shoutout is going to cost us 30 minutes! Have you guys thinked about quali like in F1 and DTM? 3 periods.... best drivers goes to next round...
Nice idea, but I fail to see how that should save time :)

[germanpio]

top 10 shoutout is going to cost us 30 minutes! Have you guys thinked about quali like in F1 and DTM? 3 periods.... best drivers goes to next round...


As far as I understand it we do a normal qualifying with 15-20 Minutes. After that we do a one-lap quali with the top 10. So the whole process would take 20 + 10 minutes if 3-4 people are on the track at the same time. I don't see why it should take 30 minutes for the shoot-out itself...

[Misko]

We were thinking about this for Serbian league, but in the end we scrapped the idea because it's just complicated for drivers and organizers and it would require discipline on track for superpole and time wasted for manual reordering, then lag lap, etc... :) But, new InSim has a reorder packet, and when someone makes some tool for this to be done easily, then why not. There's few months left to start BOTT so there's a chance.

[Arrow.]

New InSim has a reorder packet, and when someone makes some tool for this to be done easily, then why not. There's few months left to start BOTT so there's a chance.

What do you mean by reorder packet, Im willing to pay for a coder to design something for 10top shootouts and also a. Program for the LFS community to spectate the race with a inbuild chatroom for everyone watching

[Misko]

Well many things are currently in development, so check the programmers and addons sections. I'm pretty sure someone is already working on reordering cause that's something many admins have been missing a long time, but yes, post a request/reminder there. :)

[joshdifabio]

If you have positions reversed, the second race needs to be worth less points or it's unfair.

If you have exponentially increasing points distribution as is standard in motorsport, then in some situations it will be beneficial to drop places on purpose in the first race, in order to get yourself a better starting position in the second race. If you can sacrifice 1 point in the first race in order to gain 5 in the second race then that is totally illogical. Unfortunately you see it in a lot of leagues in LFS.

[Arrow.]

Hmm i see what your getting at..
maybe 50% of race 1 points for race 2 reverse grid?
example

Race 1 points
1st - 20
2nd - 18
3rd - 16

Race 2 points
1st - 10
2nd - 9
3rd - 8

would this work? :shrug:

[[DUcK]]

No because what if someone came from last place and won it in the second race, and only got 10 points for it.. Oo

[germanpio]

For Race 1 and 2 the same points if only the Top 8 would start in reversed order. Otherwise it isn't fair. :shrug:

[[DUcK]]

Hrmm... Reversed grid is too confusing. Arrow do you wanna just have simple normal grids? It's alright i'm sure there will be good racing still :)

[Arrow.]

If we aint going to have reverse grids then there aint really any point in have sprint races we myaswell have 1 long race for each round like last season expet make the races roughly 1 hour long

I think 1 race rounds are more prestiges as well :shrug:

[Nobo]

The reverse Top 8 grid and the fact that you get more points for the much longer 2nd race added a lot of excitement in the point standings in owrl. So you dont really have 1 or 2 drivers pulling away from everybody else in the standings. It makes the whole thing more interesting even though its maybe a disadvantage for faster teams.
And you have it in real life racing series that people bag off in the first race just to have a better position in the second race and the chance for higher points for example last wtcc race. There in the first race you could see that some didnt really want to overtake in the last laps.

[[DUcK]]

Yeah.
I still think we should have little sprint races, sure enduro's are more tactical, but sprints are also pretty hard. In enduro's you don't have to be full speed all the time, and you can get yourself into a groove or rythm. Sprint races you have to be flat out from the green light and make no mistakes. One mistake in a 10 lap race is worse than the same mistake in a 50 lap race.

I don't mind what we do, I'm just stating my opinion (which is never taken anyway...).
:)

[joshdifabio]

Hmm i see what your getting at..
maybe 50% of race 1 points for race 2 reverse grid?
example

Race 1 points
1st - 20
2nd - 18
3rd - 16

Race 2 points
1st - 10
2nd - 9
3rd - 8

would this work? :shrug:

This points system would be fair. This is the same kind of points distribution that is used for a reversed grid in real life. Check out GP2 for example.

The reverse Top 8 grid and the fact that you get more points for the much longer 2nd race added a lot of excitement in the point standings in owrl. So you dont really have 1 or 2 drivers pulling away from everybody else in the standings. It makes the whole thing more interesting even though its maybe a disadvantage for faster teams.

Yes but the system does not work with lots of good drivers. In real life you do have reversed grids, but not with the OWRL style points system. If you are racing against someone who is your equal, then beating them by 1 point in the first race and having them start 2 points ahead of you in the second race is completely unfair and illogical. I don't mean to sound insulting, but there's a reason no real life series use a simliar points distribution to the OWRL.

And you have it in real life racing series that people bag off in the first race just to have a better position in the second race and the chance for higher points for example last wtcc race. There in the first race you could see that some didnt really want to overtake in the last laps.

IMO, that shows that their points system is crap. The reason that happens is that difference between each position from 3rd to 8th is only 1 point, so with the reverse grid they would be gaining 1 point to potentially lose 2 if they passed anyone from 6th to 8th. This is what happens when using the same points system for both races. In the OWRL, if there are a few good drivers, you are better off dropping several places in the sprint and then cruising to a much higher points-paying first place in the second race whilst your competitors pass all the other cars.

The only fair way to have a reversed grid is to use something similar to the GP2 system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GP2_Series#Point_system).

[Nobo]

I wouldnt say its unfair, the point system applies to everyone, but the admins have to decide what they want here since its a method of keeping the league interesting and keep motivation for more then 2-3 Top-Teams.

n1lyn showed impressive at the eps finals that if you are the best you will still win everything and the point system is just not important then. And i wouldnt say that the 10 guys competing there were the worst racers in lfs.

Like i said its a question what the admins want. I just can say out of my experience the OWRL got a lot of more exciting with the new system in DivB with battle for the championship up to the last race and many drivers close in standings and the skill fighting with someone else got more important then driving alone in front of the field.

BTW: I totally understand your point out of the view of the top driver who wants to score as much points as possible. Its somehow like a penalty weight.

[joshdifabio]

I wouldnt say its unfair, the point system applies to everyone, but the admins have to decide what they want here since its a method of keeping the league interesting and keep motivation for more then 2-3 Top-Teams.

n1lyn showed impressive at the eps finals that if you are the best you will still win everything and the point system is just not important then. And i wouldnt say that the 10 guys competing there were the worst racers in lfs.

If you are the best you won't necessarily come from the back to win, that's just wrong. The point is that the OWRL will not reward the best driver if there are lots of good drivers in the field, only if there are one or two who are much better than the rest.

N1lyn obviously stood out in EPS, you can't use that one example to definitively say that "if you are the best you will still win everything". I'm sorry to sound rude but that is just an ignorant thing to say.

GP2 also uses a reversed system, it just doesn't use a ridiculous points system. I don't see why excitement has to go hand-in-hand with unbalance.

With the OWRL system, if there were a LOT of good drivers in the field, as there will likely be in the BoTT, they would all be trying to finish 8th. We don't want some kind of crappy system where people aren't racing for the win in the 1st race.

Edit: Also, in EPS the points system was uniformly increasing, not exponentially increasing. With that kind of points system there is no advantage to dropping positions on purpose, as there is in OWRL.

[Nobo]

You didnt get my quite correct i think, but i think its due to language barrier.
My point is admins have to decide what they want, keep the league interesting not only for 2-3 top teams but for more. Or just run a normal league with the 2-3 top teams running away from everyone else.

I would never say, if you have the same race length do more points for the 2nd race, that would be just crap i agree. But if you have more or less the same race length and the same points (for example EPS or real life WTCC). Then you could see it like something similar like a weight penalty.
So every league (lfs + real life) running, weight penalties, reversed grids + same or more points in second race is unfair and crap in your opinion.
To take your example:
if you have the same skill, but place one place ahead of the other car (you score more points), you get the penalty of starting one place behind this car the next race (which has the same length and the same points). Nothing else does a weight penalty. You have the same skill without the penalty but with the penalty you are slighlty slower. Which means in reverse grid that you start a place behind this car.

I am not voting for one thing just to give that into admins mind what they want.(a) A balanced league (same points 1st and 2nd race with reversed grid) - (b) a mixed thing (maybe half points for 2nd race) - (c) or start grid complete by race and qualy finish (no reversed grid same points both races)

Possibility (a) would keep definately more motivation for more teams and would result into a more interesting season for drivers and spectators, but you wouldnt always have the best 3 drivers on the podium, possibilty (b) half thing and (c) would maybe result into an early decided championship and the group of drivers on the podium would be less, but you would have always the best 3 drivers on the podiums.

The owrl example i didnt want to say its the perfect system, i just wanted to give that example what that system gave to that league compared to earlier seasons.

Not everything is good or bad about something i rather like to reflect both sides of the coin then just watch at one side.
Both methods are accepted methods in real life and sim racing, so the admins just need to decide.

[joshdifabio]

So every league (lfs + real life) running, weight penalties, reversed grids + same or more points in second race is unfair and crap in your opinion.


I said that the EPS system is ok, because the gap in points between each position is constant. If that is not the case, then yes it's totally illogical imo. If people are deciding not to overtake drivers because overall it would be a disadvantage, like you mentioned in WTCC, then of course that's not a good system.

I support a reversed grid system, just with a fair points system. Also, if some teams are much better then they _should_ score a lot more points in the championship. If some teams are way off the pace, they don't deserve to fight for the championship. I don't see how this would mean the season is boring for any teams not fighting for the championship, look at most leagues. There's usually only a small number of drivers competing for the win, but the others don't just give up and stop racing, do they?

[Nobo]

I said that the EPS system is ok, because the gap in points between each position is constant.
Nothing else was proposed here.
Sorry, we are running in circles.
2 last things since i dont think i have mor to say, just wanted to give my independent view on things, since my team is not involved.

If a team is way of the pace they will not win even with a reverse grid.
There is still a huge differnece between "keeping motivation up" and "boring" and "giving up races", it would just make differences smaller and therefore more interesting.

Good lock with spdo in this series, i am sure you will finish in one of the top positions no matter which system will be used ;). I just disagreed, with you that the same points for each sprint round would be unfair its just a different approach in concept of racing.

[joshdifabio]

Nothing else was proposed here.

I don't mean using the same points system for both races, I mean the difference between each position.

i.e. In the EPS finals there was a difference of 2 points between each position in both races, so there was nothing to be gained by dropping a position. That was the point I was trying to make.

[germanpio]

i.e. In the EPS finals there was a difference of 2 points between each position in both races, so there was nothing to be gained by dropping a position. That was the point I was trying to make.


Here you should keep in mind that this only applied to the races of the finals.

Finals: 10 drivers -> Top 10 reversed -> 18,16,14,12,10,8,6,4,2,0
Regular season: 20 drivers -> Top 8 reversed -> 31,27,24,22,20,18,16,14,12,11,10,...,1

[Jonesy_]

If there is a sprint race and a main race in an event with top8 or whatever reversed, the sprint race should be worth less or just equal amount of points rather than the main race.

In the end you still score more points the higher you finish.
Making the "strategic" choise of dropping a position in sprint race just puts you in a risk of losing that already achieved point(s) incase of accident or such in the main race.

Having both races the same length and somewhat reversed grid, indeed should have the same difference in points of a positions, except the first position.

Just my two cents.

[PaulC2K]

Mr Jones expresses an opinion different to that of my own, therefor he is sacked :p

MrJ, AFAIK both races are of equal length, there are sprint rounds (2 'half' races) and enduro rounds (1 'full' race) i dont think its been mentioned there would be different lengths.

I still think with the number of cars on the track at any given time that the results is going to be heavily balanced by luck more than the scoring system. Its going to be a REAL pain in the ass with a reversed grid having the fastest driver starting behind 30 slower drivers (in all likelyhood).

I'd prefer to see equally spread points, top 8/10 reversed.

IMO, any system that rewards you with a high starting grid spot for having a crap racing is just stupid! Ballast is one thing that can be used to compress the differences between the fastest and the slowest to keep things entertaining, but to me making someone start in last because they're fast is wrong, why not make them race with only one arm, blind folded or with only 2 wheels?
The 'if your good enough you'll come through the field' stuff is just nonsense too, sure if your that good you'll win every race, but how about the fact that maybe if you've just come 3rd then perhaps you DESERVE to start 3rd!? I just dont get the idea of taking pity on people because they're not good enough to get high finishes otherwise, its nonsense, want to start on pole? well f***ing win then you muppet! ;)

[Jonesy_]

Yes Paulie, I wasnt talking about fully reversed grid neither but top8 or so :razz:

And the idea behind reversing the top, is to make it a bit more intresting race rather than just follow the leader for two laps and then just hotlap it till the end.
ESCC at least has provided very intresting and good racing using that method.

[Arrow.]

The aim of BOTT is to find the the best teams in LFS

- I dont think adding weight is a good idea
- Top 8 reverse i dont think is a good idea
i find it unfair for the teams in 9th 10th and 1st 2nd ect
If your going to reverse the grid why not have full reverse grid? :shrug:

This is my suggestion of running sprint race (just come up with it)
This is very similar to how Kart Races are run over here

Qualifying 10-20min
Race 1 10 laps - qualifying position
Race 2 10 laps - Reverse grid
Final 15 laps - Grid position determined by R1 and R2 points added

Points from the final only count

[anttt69]

If the aim is to find the best team then you need to have mixed format races. I suggest these as your two formats:

Format One

15 mins Quali followed by top ten shoot out :thumb:
20 mins Sprint Race (rev top 8-10 for main)
40 mins Main Race

Format Two

15 mins Quali followed by top ten shoot out :thumb:
One-Two hour enduro race with compulsory driver changes. Three drivers represent each team.

I love the idea of the top ten shoot out but it has to be slickly run. i.e. on Xfg Kyoto you would have two cars on warm up/outlap whilst one is on thier flying lap. You dont want 20 teams sat there watching one car on its warm up lap. In a nutshell, keep it action packed for the spectators.

You can use the formats above as little or as often as you want it does'nt have to be half & half. The democratic/fair way to do it would be to draw up a list of possible formats & then each team (not driver)gets a vote. Reversing the whole grid does not work as the carnage of a 32 car grid would be to much. IMO the differences in speed & skill level throughout the grid would just cause too many accidents.

[[DUcK]]

**** ant ur coming up with the goods tonight arent ya!! another nice post :D

i also think we should just have XFG at rd1. ( u cant say were bias becoz qstomeq has wr in xrg anyway;) )
otherwise itd be too hard to sort out the weight or pwr restriction for xrg.

[anttt69]

;463497']**** ant ur coming up with the goods tonight arent ya!! another nice post :D



thanks, I got so carried away I forgot to enter my team!

I see that fusion drivers hold both WR's on that particular combo :). As the XRG is more difficult to drive I think it about evens it out as it is. Another idea would be that Div1 use XRG & Div2 XFG then you get extra close one make racing. :thumb:

[Jonesy_]

Duck, you ain't dropping the xrg :razz:

[[DUcK]]

I iz :D

[PaulC2K]

WOW, Jonesy gets fired twice in 24hrs!! :P

Jonesy, shut up, if the chap wants to drop the crappy RWD car let him!!
I was ranting on our forum just an hour or so ago (hadnt had emails saying thread had been replied to, so hadnt looked for replies here) that most of the rounds are RWD only cars and the XFG/XRG opener the XRG would win without doubt even if it was 0.5sec slower round there because of the size of the straight there, its impossible to stop them overtaking you down the straight and impossible to keep up with them, and the infield unless they leave the door open it wont be easy to pass them, and even if you do you'll lose the place yet again down the straight anyway. You can defend corners if they're your weak-spot, but you cannot defend a 30sec straight without breaking rules to do so, its simply impossible, it might as well be a BF1 vs UF1, give it up.

[Jakg]

just done some quick tests, inside of 3 laps i'm in the 1:16's in the XRG so i'm looking forward to getting owned by the Fusion. guys

[Jonesy_]

Yes, but fwd is gay, and xrg rocks, xrg also hasnt been used in the past season neither.

change of track or something then maybe?
Or are you all too pussy to drive the xrg and insist the tardmobile?`:tilt:

[PaulC2K]

Congrats on the hatrick :D

Yes, Paulien00dles is a retard who cant drive RWD worth a sh!t so whats new :p
Im just going to insist on you and bagbag doing all the driving from now on, dont care what the circumstances are, your both doing all the MoE races including the 24hr race alone!

[[DUcK]]

LOL paul :D haha thats funny.


ps sir jonez, we aint droppin the xfg :D

[Bawbag]

The aim of BOTT is to find the the best teams in LFS

- I dont think adding weight is a good idea
- Top 8 reverse i dont think is a good idea
i find it unfair for the teams in 9th 10th and 1st 2nd ect
If your going to reverse the grid why not have full reverse grid? :shrug:

This is my suggestion of running sprint race (just come up with it)
This is very similar to how Kart Races are run over here

Qualifying 10-20min
Race 1 10 laps - qualifying position
Race 2 10 laps - Reverse grid
Final 15 laps - Grid position determined by R1 and R2 points added

Points from the final only count

Points from only the final, are you MAD! :really:

Get rid of the final and have 2 races both the same length worth the same amount of positions and there you go, sorted.

On the reversed thing, reversing a full grid is crazy, often the spread in times between the winner of a race and the person in last would be seconds off the pace, imagine the carnage at everybody trying to overtake the car infront of them.

Top 8 however, or top 10, (Maybe even half the size of the grid, still a bit much probarly) reversed gives alot more than no change in grid. Seriously, if you are doing 2 or even 3 races, who wants to see the same guy have another trouble free race hotlapping in the lead, infact, how do you think he feels? Would be like Kimi at Melbourne, falling asleep damnit!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlZQMhgHRs8 is just a small example of the top 8 rev which works perfectly, I won the first and this was an example of the second.

If this ^^^^ isn't what you guys want, then seriously, better get sponsored by Nescafe as there's no way your keeping us awake. :(

[Arrow.]

I still like my idea best :nod:
it would also provide great racing in race 2

[anttt69]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlZQMhgHRs8 is just a small example of the top 8 rev which works perfectly, I won the first and this was an example of the second.


thats some damn close racing!

[Kaw]

I still like my idea best :nod:
it would also provide great racing in race 2

IMO thats a very bad idea.

Only points in the final isn't my fav suggestion. Liked the other things, just not the only final points counts

[Arrow.]

ok hows this..

Option 1
Qualifying 20mins
Race 1 Qualifying positions (10laps)
Race 2 Full reverse Grid (10lap)
Race 3 points from 1 + 2 determine the grid for race 3 (15laps
All points count

Option 2
Qualifying 20mins
Race 1 Qualfying Positions
Race 2 Reverse top 8

[[DUcK]]

im gonna say this coz everyone else will....
option 2

[Kaw]

ok hows this..

Option 1
Qualifying 20mins
Race 1 Qualifying positions (10laps)
Race 2 Full reverse Grid (10lap)
Race 3 points from 1 + 2 determine the grid for race 3 (15laps
All points count

Option 2
Qualifying 20mins
Race 1 Qualfying Positions
Race 2 Reverse top 8

I like the Option 2. But the option one if Race 2 would be only top 8 reverse.


EDIT: Option 2 for me

[Bawbag]

I like option 2 for a number of reasons, main ones were in my previous post.

But another thing is time, your asking 60 odd people to do 4 sessions of racing on a Saturday night? I know they are relatively short, but can anyone point out a race last season when things went to plan? ie we never ran over any time limit like a HALF hour break inbetween 2 sessions? :really:

With the reversed thing, I really think the highest you can go is half however many cars are on the grid reversed, maybe have some sort of vote on it?

[Arrow.]

I still dont see why you guys dont want a full reverse grid :schwitz::tilt:

In Monday night racing we had 2 reverse grids on SO1 - FXR with 32 cars
if i remember correctly there were barely any crashes :scratchch

[germanpio]

Option2

[baSh0r]

option 2 looks good

[PaulC2K]

ok hows this..

Option 1
Qualifying 20mins
Race 1 Qualifying positions (10laps) too short
Race 2 Full reverse Grid (10lap) too short and no way in hell you could pass half the cars to get towards the front.
Race 3 points from 1 + 2 determine the grid for race 3 (15laps) how long would that take to calculate the points from 2 races and get everyone into order?!? Come back the next day folks!
All points count


Option 2
Qualifying 20mins
Race 1 Qualfying Positions
Race 2 Reverse top 8 Simple, as simple as paulien00dles himself


Option 1 is just too messy WAY too messy, option 2 keeps things simple and mixes it up at the front of the grid.

[Bawbag]

I still dont see why you guys dont want a full reverse grid :schwitz::tilt:

In Monday night racing we had 2 reverse grids on SO1 - FXR with 32 cars
if i remember correctly there were barely any crashes :scratchch


#1 we don't want you starting first :razz:

#2 I think this calls for a test, how's about a full server of As nat GTR's, a few races run to determine who should be upfront and who should be at the rear, then reverse the grid. :D

Seriously, going for a full grid reverse is just plain stupid and maybe to put it into terms of work for you, can you imagine how many complains you would need to handle? :thumbsup:

[Viper93]

I like them both. Option 2 is simpler causing less confusion among the drivers but Option 1 will give you better drivers in div 1 I think. Sure it sucks to get stuck behind someone, but thats racing and a good racer can get by a slower car fairly easy.

Granted this is conditional that the drivers racing actually know how to handle T1.. I think it might just be easier to use Option 2. Reversing the the top 8 would work out good too. :shrug: I think most people by now can handle it, but there is always that one driver or two...

[Arrow.]

ok, lets organise a test day

and we will put both options into play and see what everyone likes best:thumb:

[PaulC2K]

I like them both. Option 2 is simpler causing less confusion among the drivers but Option 1 will give you better drivers in div 1 I think. Sure it sucks to get stuck behind someone, but thats racing and a good racer can get by a slower car fairly easy.
Its one thing to get pass *a* slower car fairly easy, but when the (ex)leader is expected to get past 2nd, 3rd, 4th and so on before actually getting to the slower cars, you also have a high probability of one of the slower cars creating an accident which could easily create problems for the faster people relegated to the back of the track. Obviously similar could happen in the first race if a faster person makes a mistake costing a slower driver, but that guy is back there on merit, not because of some silly game to entertain people.
You also get a really big bottleneck because of it, the slower drivers are at the front, the faster at the back, and they all effectively meet in the middle because the slow-coach mobile chicanes are holding people up. Anyone that had a significantly bad race and should have been in the top half and ended up right near the bottom then gets promoted to the front end and after passing say 8 cars is home free while the people who are just as fast as them are still 10+ cars behind trying to work their way through the 'slower than them' pack.
Every attempted move has the potential to go wrong, and with that and the bottlenecking and tightly packed cars theres a very high probability of seeing some of the top cars at the back losing a whole heap of places and possibly a load of damage to boot.


Arrow, I really dont see the reason for your determination for this reversed full grid, you've stated that you didnt want result ballast because you wanted the fastest drivers to be able to win, and yet its clear as black and white that expecting the fastest driver to come through 31 other cars in a short timeframe (10 laps according to an earlier post!!!!) is just stupid, especially if the winner of the BS 2nd race gets the same points as the winner of the 1st race.

The aim of BOTT is to find the the best teams in LFS

- I dont think adding weight is a good idea
- Top 8 reverse i dont think is a good idea
i find it unfair for the teams in 9th 10th and 1st 2nd ect
If your going to reverse the grid why not have full reverse grid?If its unfair for the teams in 9th & 10th and 1st & 2nd, exactly how does it become fair by telling the 1st place guy 'your not starting 8th, your starting 32nd, 8th wouldnt be very fair would it', cos im pretty sure 2nd isnt very fair, they just came 1st afterall why are they being penalised for being fastest anyway?? its all in the name of 'Entertainment' apparently.

It seems that by 'entertainment' it means use the slower guys as mobile chicanes to provide a bit of fun, you want the fast guys to make things interesting by overtaking slower people, surely thats not entertaining, we can see that sort of action we'd all head to demo servers for our racing kicks, surely the entertainment comes from people racing others they're a match for, and thats why i think ballast which is also used in racing series. Theres a reason so few series IRL do reversed grids or other tricks to fake the entertainment value of the races, and mainly its because the idea of racing isnt to handycap and punish people because they're doing well.

I really dont see what benefit full grid reversal has, i mean it was something invented to entertain paying customers who got tired of watching sh!t racing, dumb things down for the fans who cant appreciate what racing actually is and needed to be entertained by cars being side by side because gate receipts were dropping. Its not done to prove anything from a racing pov, its a bums on seats trick. Drivers dont like it, but the dumb fans who dont seem to understand the concept of racing seem to think its fantastic, probably the same set of people that find Nascar to be the premier racing series :scratchch


It'd be better off being called the 'lucky dip' round, we should all just do 1 90min race and then for the 2nd set of results just draw straws and save ourselves the messing about and get just as consistant results. :really:

[Arrow.]

I think we will be going for this method less hassle and more racing
what do you think?

20min Qualifying/grid sorting
1 hour race ex 40 laps

[anttt69]

Sounds good, you have'nt mentioned number of drivers per team or weather its a shared team car or what the format for each team will be?

[PaulC2K]

I MSN'd Arrow about this the other week, the original idea of having multiple race rounds and endurance rounds seems to have vanished in favour of the previous 1 race for 100min which is pretty much a done race after the opening 30min.

Still, hopefully it will be entertaining eitherway.

[anttt69]

I see. 1hr 40mins is more like an enduro though :(.

[Arrow.]

Sounds good, you have'nt mentioned number of drivers per team or weather its a shared team car or what the format for each team will be?

look around the subforum in information it states
2 car per team no driver swaps

[Storm_Cloud]

50 laps of KY GP Long in FO8...

My life is complete :)

[N I K I]

I think we should race 1 hour races, and when time outs when leader crosses finish line we have checker flag out. 50 laps is somewhere 1 hour and somewhere it's almost 2...

[Rocabiliz]

50 laps can mean 2/2.3 hours in FE Black as it can be 30 minutes in Aston cadet :shrug: