Round 4: Post-race Discussion [Archive]

The Moose

31st May 2008, 23:25

Until i see the replay i don't know what to say about this race.

It was all over in the first 20 mins for us.

Twice in the early laps i was involved in collisions, both believed to be caused by lag, so i cant really complain too much, though we were damaged seriously enough to have to pit. Luckily the SC came out so we got away with that without loosing a load of time.

Lap 8 i got hit from behind in T1, spinning me and heating my tires right up (an incident i wasn't at all happy about, to say the least, and afaik no punishment was given to the guy who hit me:shrug:), then i had a bit of a wobble in T3 and car #22 hit me as well, screwing the car up completely. It was barely drivable and i spun twice trying to get back to the pits again.

Two pitstops in the first 8 laps and it's effectively race over. We continued anyway, but it was the most disappointing race of the season by a long way.

Grats to the Podium finishers :)

UncleBenny

31st May 2008, 23:31

The Moose

31st May 2008, 23:41

Just wanted to apologize to the 06 team for the incident on lap 8 I think it was, I was right behind you in turn 1 then the server lagged or something, because next thing I knew my car was stopped facing the wrong direction, sorry you guys got taken out by that too. Our other team said they noticed the server skip too so I think it was a lag problem.

Ahh, ok. I didn't realise that was lag as well. No problem then:)
Thanks for the explanation.

So was the server just crap tonight or what. No one complained about me lagging so I'm assuming it was the server. It seemed horrible in the opening laps.
It's not good when your scared to get close to anyone for fear of being punted off like you were hit by a train, due to lag.

R.Kolz

31st May 2008, 23:53

TDRT TheDanishRacingTeam.

Good race for TDRT´s FXR´s. :)

Car no#4 had two very good drivers and what at the very beginning looked like a disaster was turned into another great podium finish.
Well done guys. Proud of you.

Car no#29 unfort. was taken out at a SC restart. Then another accident with a blue flagged driver and for the last hour engine damage couldn´t make it a toprunner this round. Finishing 9th is still a good result.

See you all next round.

@ Looking at " The Moose " right on top of my post I wanna thank his green FZR and there was another one ( need to see the replay again ) for letting me pass so easily. Not just once but a lot of times starting our lap 88. Thanks a lot.

fadeaway

1st June 2008, 00:06

Congratulations to CoRe, as usual very good race and fantastic time.

Very exciting race for us, we were between 8th and 25th place, and finally finished race on acceptable 12th place (first time without big problems). Kind of sad becouse lost 11th place in last sector of race, but thats all racing :shrug:

See you on Westhill :)

Storm_Cloud

1st June 2008, 00:19

Very happy to grab 11th place in the last sector of the race :)

Kringle seemed nicely placed when I checked after doing the OWRL F1 race but we suffered a disco and I think that's where we lost our lap. I came on for my double stint in about 20th place and just set about overtaking everything I could find as we were out of place according to the server due to the disco. The only time I was overtaken in those 2 hours was when my monitor turned itself off as I hadn't pressed any keys so it went to power saving.

The disco was a real shame - overall I think we could have challenged the top 6 with our pace but it was still great fun just blasting round catching and passing anything that moved.

Thanks to the admins! Looking forward to the next race.

pearcy_2k7

1st June 2008, 00:20

Replays men replays!

Mysho

1st June 2008, 00:32

I just wanted to say it was great fun for me, besides from all problems we had. This track has good sections for fun races. :)

srdjanmilasinovic

1st June 2008, 00:50

Very happy to grab 11th place in the last sector of the race

I don't have good tires to resist to you or your driver. :shrug::shrug::shrug:

Great time N.Scott and grats too podium! :thumb::thumb::thumb:

CYA next race!

Megin

1st June 2008, 07:17

First I have to say sorry for UKTC team for our move to the racing line after spin in 'uphill chicane'. That spin was involved by try of overtake us by other car in dangerous uphill chicane, what is very stupid idea overtaking there. After penalty and driver change we manage do everything to take some position form the rear of field. There was SC phase so we take this advantage and 5-6 teams we overtake. In couple of last laps I defended our position against #24 Speed Core Caring Team but they was to quick for us and they overtake us in last lap. It was our standard performance, stable race times, little bit slower but stable. See u next time!

Itar (CZ)

1st June 2008, 07:37

Our breaking point was second SC phase, after which we unfortunately slightly damaged our engine in that doubtful incident. So after great start, this broke all our plans and we just tried to finish the race as fast as we could (so not that fast). Anyway, I have to say thanks too all drivers, who were lapped by me, because I don't have any problem with those for whole race.

PS: Hoping for better next race, even that I don't like Westhill at all...

Gil07

1st June 2008, 09:17

Scott_Michaels

1st June 2008, 09:34

This was probably our best race of the season, but unfortunatley it came on the easiest track so far so we still didn't end up with a great position! I qualified the car 17th with a half decent laptime, could have done better but probably not moved far up the grid. I was disapointed to see none of you guys knew how to run a formation lap. Wait for the driver infront of you to move before moving off the startline!
Anyway, the start went badly because of course everyone except me decided to anticipate the lights and I came off worse in the stack-up, but its a 4 hour race so I wasn't sweating it. Got back passed Peregrinus and retook my place on lap 1 anyway. Managed to get as high as 10th before I made an idiot mistake in the first chicane and wrecked my car at about the 20 minute mark, way too early for that kind of incident. That dropped us back and it was all I could do to stay in touch with the leaders and try to gain my lap back at a yellow flag. When the second yellow finally came out I was right behind the leader, but he pitted so I got the wave-by. Phew! I got to start over again....
I ended up climbing as high as 7th at one point which was great for us, but I got some engine damage from over-revving in the 2nd hour (my inexperience again) and that put pay to a top 10 for us. I handed off to Joe in about 12th place at the 3 hour mark, and he drove a consistent last hour, but the engine damage dropped us through the midfield pack and we ended up 17th. We'll get that top 10 next time I guess!

A couple of notes. Some guys were too aggressive for my liking at the start, particularly the #14. You didn't technically do anything wrong, but going 3 wide at the last second on the brakes into the hairpin? I chose to give you room when I really shouldn't have because that was a dumb move by you, and I ended up spinning Pereginus out instead. Nice. You then spun out at the chicane, and instead of jamming on the brakes and making yourself an easy to avoid stationary target, you decided to try and turn yourself around immediatley and rolled straight into my path. Thanks for that.
And you guys still don't seem to have learned how to take a restart. If you wait for the green light like you are supposed to you wont have the huge stack-up and you wont have so many crashes. I hung back and waited for the green flag before going on my restarts and I gained about 5 spots every time. Try it, its fun ;)

Cya next time!

rc10racer

1st June 2008, 11:25

Replays men replays!

Replays are not full but only what i have.

http://www.filesharefree.com/423356

burnsy1882

1st June 2008, 13:27

Replays men replays!

Replays are not full but only what i have.

http://www.filesharefree.com/423356

the replay is posted in the results and points thread for the round.

DeadWolfBones

1st June 2008, 15:36

Ben: I'd still like some clarification regarding that restart incident.

In racing, being able to time the start at the right time to not overtake anyone before the green flag but still have a run at them, is a perfectly valid and good way imo. In this case it wasn't on purpose, but I still don't agree with the penalty we were given.

In my view what Jason did was a perfectly good move, and it was also legal according to what's written in the rules, as no overtaking move was started (we weren't even close to any other car) before the green flag.

It would be better to know where we stand before the next races.

Edit: And after watching the replay I can add that we definitely weren't the only team to do this, many of the others did as well. The car in front of us (#11 iirc) was on FT as well, so we followed him, but he had to brake, otherwise he would have passed before green. Then green came and we simply continued racing, avoiding the #11 that was going much slower. I still think this was an unfair penalty.

I'll be looking at the replay more thoroughly once I get home. My feeling is this...

If the guys in front are stacked up doing the same speed as the leader, waiting for the green flag, while the guys in the back are on the throttle and going 20kph quicker--there's some kind of injustice going on. However, as you say, this does happen in real life motorsport.

I'll examine the replay more closely and think about it some more when I have the time.

Gil07

1st June 2008, 16:58

I've uploaded a mprEdited replay of the incident, for easier viewing. Only now I've seen the crash that happened afterwards, it seems like all cars behind us and car #11 right in front of us, are at the same speed at that point, and not only us. #11 even managed to hit the car in front of him... :)

The green flag moment isn't shown in the replay, but it was just when J.Lovett got back on the throttle after braking when he got upto #11.

http://www.mediafire.com/?zxclfvp4noq

Edit: If you look at car #01, you can see the green flag moment, so you can pause the game there and see #05 is actually going 5mph slower than the car in front...

Speedy Pro

2nd June 2008, 03:30

Hey all,

Hope my post is not in the wrong place. I just wached the replay of round 4 and must say really well done to both the participants and the organizers. It was my first time watching IGTC and I really enjoyed it. Almost as good as watching real races on the telly! :thumb:

And TRDT 04 - that was a fantastic comeback! :thumbsup:

DeadWolfBones

2nd June 2008, 03:42

Hey, glad you liked it. :D

I wish the replays captured the SC/green flag announcements, etc, but perhaps one day we'll get a professional broadcasting thing together.

Speedy Pro

2nd June 2008, 06:06

Hey, glad you liked it. :D

I wish the replays captured the SC/green flag announcements, etc, but perhaps one day we'll get a professional broadcasting thing together.

Well, the replay did have safety car announcements (as in "safety car out" or something like that) and the messages said when it's coming in.

It wasn't very clear what happened to the Alias Racing/F. Sonne car after it stopped out on track (did he just Shift+S?), and the RB4 push car losing it on track was funny :)

It would be totally awesome if the view could automatically shift to the current closest battle on track, maybe by monitoring the gaps or something. But that's just wishful thinking, and as I said, it's really good as is. Keep it up guys!

DeadWolfBones

2nd June 2008, 06:11

It wasn't very clear what happened to the Alias Racing/F. Sonne car after it stopped out on track (did he just Shift+S?), and the RB4 push car losing it on track was funny :)

He'd gotten a drive-through penalty for a teammate chatting on his pitstop in-lap. Unfortunately, in LFS you can't pit if you have an outstanding penalty to serve, and he had cut it very close on fuel--so he ran out while going around again after serving the penalty. The SC was sent out so the push car could bring him in, but he quit in frustration before the PC could get there. This was discussed at some length in the race report thread if you'd like to read up on it there.

It would be totally awesome if the view could automatically shift to the current closest battle on track, maybe by monitoring the gaps or something. But that's just wishful thinking, and as I said, it's really good as is. Keep it up guys!

There's actually a program called LFS TVDirector that does just that, and it works spectacularly well. I believe it's on the first page of the Add-Ons forum right now. :thumbsup:

Speedy Pro

2nd June 2008, 07:01

Thanks, DeadWolfBones! Bummer about Franke's incident, but that's racing, I guess. :(
The TVDirector apps works really well. I'm hooked now :D

R.Kolz

4th June 2008, 11:14

IGTC rule:
http://www.lfsigtc.net/rules/rules.html#k

1.1) The SC will remain on track for a minimum of 2 laps.

The SC drove 1 lap only during the first SC period leaving our #4 car 1 minute behind the rest of the field.

pearcy_2k7

4th June 2008, 11:24

Don't forget how long Aston Hist. is compared to other tracks like FE Gold, 2 laps behind the safety car there may create havoc with people trying to keep their tyres warm and also after the restart on very cold tyres, it was in everyones best intrests IMO to only have 1 lap behind the SC if there is no longer danger to the drivers, pointless driving another lap.

R.Kolz

4th June 2008, 11:26

srdsprinter

4th June 2008, 12:07

Can´t catch the sarcasm or irony in your statement.
Ditto. A rule is a rule is a rule. If any are to be enforced, then all need to be enforced. Mistakes happen, but picking and choosing (without prior advances) is not really the way to do things.

pearcy_2k7

4th June 2008, 12:12

Ditto. A rule is a rule is a rule. If any are to be enforced, then all need to be enforced. Mistakes happen, but picking and choosing (without prior advances) is not really the way to do things.

Yes, i understand, has nothing to do with me, just voicing my opinion, that maybe this rule should be looked at more closely in future rounds.

DeadWolfBones

4th June 2008, 12:49

Pearcy's reasoning is why we chose to do what we did there. We were sort of caught between a rock and a hard place with that one--the entire field was caught up with 1 sector to go with the exception of one car. Our choices were to let everyone's already cold tires cool for another entire lap of Historic and cause further problems on the restart, or let them go. I was uncomfortable with altering the rule on the fly (as I always am) but the situation seemed pressing.

Lucky for TDRT that the second SC period came out, I guess.

The rule alteration will be made explicit in advance of the next round.

R.Kolz

4th June 2008, 12:59

pearcy_2k7

4th June 2008, 13:05

I agree that this should have been mentioned at some point during the race for the teams to tell the drivers, the admins made the best decision at that time i think, at FE Gold i only did about 4laps behind the safety car and my tyres were stone cold, caused my problems for 2 laps, by the time i got them heated up again they had worn considerably.

DeadWolfBones

4th June 2008, 14:01

So you´re saying that in your oppinion the field wasn´t able to do another SC lap? Why not just say that you made a mistake.

I'm saying that in my opinion, the benefits of going another lap under SC conditions (i.e., letting one car catch the field) were outweighed by the risks (i.e., sending 27 cars into T1 on ice cubes). I don't feel it was a mistake, though it was technically in breach of the rules. It was a decision we made for the safety of the teams involved.

edit: which, by the way, is the only reason I'd consciously consider going against the written rules.

srdsprinter

4th June 2008, 14:22

DWB, you understand the problem with not calling it a mistake?

TDRT Likely chose their strategy based of the 2-lap minimum rule, and possibly would have approached it differently had they known otherwise. How was TDRT to know you would circumvent the rules to benefit the rest of the field at the detriment of their own?

You didn't abide by one of your own rules. In this instance, it undoubtedly hurt one team, while benefiting the team of your own affiliation in two instances. 1) It's tires were less cold, and 2) one opponent was left far far behind.

So it would be benificial to call it a simple mistake (of the rules more than anything), and make the neccesary changes to the rules.

EDIT -> IMO, the 2-lap rule is a good one to abide by for strategy and general spacing. IF you feel the need to make a short SC period, a general alert should be made as soon as possible.

DeadWolfBones

4th June 2008, 14:57

But it was not a mistake. It was a conscious decision made by the group of admins for the benefit of the majority of drivers/teams.

The rules allow for the admins to make judgment calls in such situations, and that's what we did.

End of discussion, as far as I'm concerned.

srdsprinter

4th June 2008, 15:30

I understand that, but can you see the trouble with this?

TDRT was unaware, and got screwed by it. While you have a provision for such events, you (as a group) broke a pretty clear rule, that people make important strategy decisions off of.

Lastly, because it was a "judgement call" and not a mistake, we all now have to wonder if you would have done the same exact thing if it was a CoRe car that was going to be screwed and not TDRT.

I personally believe you would, but can you see how this kind of behavior raises eyebrows of impartiality?

DeadWolfBones

4th June 2008, 15:37

Lastly, because it was a "judgement call" and not a mistake, we all now have to wonder if you would have done the same exact thing if it was a CoRe car that was going to be screwed and not TDRT.

I personally believe you would, but can you see how this kind of behavior raises eyebrows of impartiality?

Well, it's certainly not surprising that you'd bring it up since you do so at every opportunity.

The only way for me to entirely erase the possibility for partiality is to resign from the IGTC or to leave CoRe. Aside from those two options I've done (and I hope my record here will back me up) everything possible to strengthen the image of my impartiality (its actuality has always been strong).

Our decision benefited 25 teams and disadvantaged 1. Furthermore, you probably won't believe me when I say so, but I for one was unaware as to who the straggler was when we reached the decision to go green after one SC lap.

If you want to drag up the specter of impartiality again, there's nothing I can do to stop you. But to me, I don't think it enters into the equation in the slightest.

srdsprinter

4th June 2008, 15:53

Well, it's certainly not surprising that you'd bring it up since you do so at every opportunity.

The only way for me to entirely erase the possibility for partiality is to resign from the IGTC or to leave CoRe. Aside from those two options I've done (and I hope my record here will back me up) everything possible to strengthen the image of my impartiality (its actuality has always been strong).
I don't see it this way. By following rules as they are written, there's very little room to assume anything. In this instance, had we done the second lap of SC there might have been increased risk of colder tires, but there would be No question of second interests there or not. TDRT would have had an advantage, caught up to the field with properly warmed tires, but hell, the rules are written so a strategy like that can work.

Our decision benefited 25 teams and disadvantaged 1. Furthermore, you probably won't believe me when I say so, but I for one was unaware as to who the straggler was when we reached the decision to go green after one SC lap.

I do believe you. I believe you to be an honest And impartial person. That said, actions speak louder than words, and I'm of the belief that it behooves the IGTC staff to try and remove themselves from judgement calls whenever possible.

R.Kolz

4th June 2008, 16:06

The rule alteration will be made explicit in advance of the next round.
..though it was technically in breach of the rules...
The rules allow for the admins to make judgment calls in such situations, and that's what we did.

For me you´re not very clear here. Good if you would mind to explain it a bit better to us.

And allow me to give you a picture of the TDRT camps atmosphere:

Very frustated.

Here:

http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=42456

you gave both TDRT cars a very hard -10 points penalty but explained yourself in red letters.
Your admin stuff didn´t feel the urge to change the rules at this time.

This round you just change an existing rule during the race once more punishing team TDRT.

I hope you understand our (TDRT) personal feelings about it a bit better now.

I do believe you. I believe you to be an honest And impartial person. That said, actions speak louder than words, and I'm of the belief that it behooves the IGTC staff to try and remove themselves from judgement calls whenever possible.

+1

pearcy_2k7

4th June 2008, 16:19

But what good do you want to come of this? Do you want the 1 minute back? When the disadvanatge you got equalled itself in the second SC period, if it didn't it might be a different story.

The admin team DID make a mistake on the rules and DIDN'T obide by them, this hopfully will make them scan through the rules again and check for any mistakes like this, so in future they won't have to make any judgement calls and therefore not up to any speculation of foul play. But if they do this, i don't suppose anyone won't start moaning when they didn't make an obvious judgement call.

R.Kolz

4th June 2008, 20:20

But what good do you want to come of this? Do you want the 1 minute back? When the disadvanatge you got equalled itself in the second SC period, if it didn't it might be a different story.

No. It´s not about a minute or something.Read my posts once more.
And a received disadvantage of a first SC period can´t never equal itself by a second SC period. Think about it.

The admin team DID make a mistake on the rules and DIDN'T obide by them, this hopfully will make them scan through the rules again and check for any mistakes like this, so in future they won't have to make any judgement calls and therefore not up to any speculation of foul play. But if they do this, i don't suppose anyone won't start moaning when they didn't make an obvious judgement call.

+1

nmanley

4th June 2008, 21:38

Well, it's certainly not surprising that you'd bring it up since you do so at every opportunity.

The only way for me to entirely erase the possibility for partiality is to resign from the IGTC or to leave CoRe. Aside from those two options I've done (and I hope my record here will back me up) everything possible to strengthen the image of my impartiality (its actuality has always been strong).

Our decision benefited 25 teams and disadvantaged 1. Furthermore, you probably won't believe me when I say so, but I for one was unaware as to who the straggler was when we reached the decision to go green after one SC lap.

If you want to drag up the specter of impartiality again, there's nothing I can do to stop you. But to me, I don't think it enters into the equation in the slightest.

OH HELL NO!!!!!!!!!!

It's been obvious either YOU or the ADMINS has shown consistent decision making that it's OK if it only screws one or two teams but never certain top running teams. Just the way the history of race decisions has shown to be.
Granted that early on it was a learning process and that may never stop as situations arise.

The problem NOW is admins had not made any "On the fly Change" to the rules till now and it hung a team out to dry. COLD tires are the same for EVERYBODY. I know the top teams and anyone with any sense will base pit stop on Safety Car periods and if that is changed on the fly it throws that out the window. The decision made, made it NOT the SAME for ALL. Either get that through your heads or get out.

If you want to have a real racing series where the mistake of others , as in one car crashing another car out of the race, cannot be corrected by ADMINISTRATORS then get the heck off your computers and go work for IMSA or Petite Le Mans or something! THIS IS SUPPOSE TO BE FUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :really:

Scott_Michaels

4th June 2008, 22:02

You can't go changing the rules on the fly just because you have no faith in the ability or patience of your drivers, especially if it hangs another team out to dry.

BenjiMC

4th June 2008, 22:03

OH HELL NO!!!!!!!!!!

It's been obvious either YOU or the ADMINS has shown consistent decision making that it's OK if it only screws one or two teams but never certain top running teams.

Thats quite untrue. think about for example the CoRe incident at FE gold or the multiple penalties for 3id in this round. or even round 1 were 3id had to start at the back because of an LFS glitch ruining qually?

Just the way the history of race decisions has shown to be.
Granted that early on it was a learning process and that may never stop as situations arise.

The problem NOW is admins had not made any "On the fly Change" to the rules till now and it hung a team out to dry. COLD tires are the same for EVERYBODY. I know the top teams and anyone with any sense will base pit stop on Safety Car periods and if that is changed on the fly it throws that out the window.This safety car period was early in the race i understand, so the chances of anybody making a pit stop here are slim.

The decision made, made it NOT the SAME for ALL. Either get that through your heads or get out.Whilst i agree it was a bad call on the part of being an on the fly rule change it was for the benefit of the majority of the field and to prevent the possibility of a crash on the restart with cold tyres. For future adjustments the rate of cooling can be assessed by us and we can give a time limit rather than laps since the time is relative to track size.

If you want to have a real racing series where the mistake of others , as in one car crashing another car out of the race, cannot be corrected by ADMINISTRATORS then get the heck off your computers and go work for IMSA or Petite Le Mans or something! THIS IS SUPPOSE TO BE FUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :really:Precisely. The fun is in the racing not the crashing nor the conspiracy accusations by yourself. "Participants in the series are expected to respect the marshals’ decisions and accept their rulings." i dont see it necessary for you to respond like you did so please assess your reply before posting it.

dktoben

4th June 2008, 22:56

Whilst i agree it was a bad call on the part of being an on the fly rule change it was for the benefit of the majority of the field and to prevent the possibility of a crash on the restart with cold tyres. For future adjustments the rate of cooling can be assessed by us and we can give a time limit rather than laps since the time is relative to track size.

Thank you !

I can't see any meaning in changing the rules during a race, and defintly not when a team gets punished by it !

If you finally decide to break the rules, you could atleast let the SC drive a bit slower (There isn't a rule for how fast the SC drives, right ?) , so it would be possible, for us to get back to the field.

"Participants in the series are expected to respect the marshals' decisions and accept their rulings."

Yes, but try see it from our side! It's pretty difficult to accept that because of the marshalls, for some reason, decide too change the rules in the middle of a race, we get punished!

or the multiple penalties for 3id in this round

Another little thing I have been woundering about. When My3id gets a SG penalti in the middle of lap 88, they have 3½ (?) laps to serve it! That means lap 89, 90 and 91. But at lap 91 K.Burns write to D.Lind: "You now have 2 laps left to serve you penalty". In my eyes did he only have 1 chance to serve, at that moment ? Am I wrong ? At lap 92 he serves it.
I'm just wondering, if there is an explanation for that ?

DeadWolfBones

4th June 2008, 23:00

Another little thing I have been woundering about. When My3id gets a SG penalti in the middle of lap 88, they have 3½ (?) laps to serve it! That means lap 89, 90 and 91. But at lap 91 K.Burns write to D.Lind: "You now have 2 laps left to serve you penalty". In my eyes did he only have 1 chance to serve, at that moment ? Am I wrong ? At lap 92 he serves it.
I'm just wondering, if there is an explanation for that ?

There was some confusion amongst the admins at the time (resulting in Burnsy writing that message). Since it was our mistake, we didn't penalize him further (though theoretically his team should have been keeping track for him).

dktoben

4th June 2008, 23:02

There was some confusion amongst the admins at the time (resulting in Burnsy writing that message). Since it was our mistake, we didn't penalize him further (though theoretically his team should have been keeping track for him).

I actually thought it was something like that, which was the problem ;).

srdsprinter

4th June 2008, 23:04

Lol. While Nolan (and I, and a few others can get excited), I am truely appreciative to see that both you and others can understand how this is a cause for concern. I believe good is coming from this discussion, I really do.

No-one deserves to be caught out by administrative decisions.

Having strong admins and well-writen rules are part of what makes this series Great.

I certainly am NOT accusing you (admins plural) of favoring your respective teams, but merely pointing out how you need to be very careful to Not take actions that can question your impartiality.

It is plainly obvious when it comes to black-and-white rules, you hold your teams to the strictest standards. The "grey areas" are what can lead to trouble.

When your team looses a connection or sets fastest lap, a :( or :) from the admins does not show true impartiality. It's nothing more than a simple finger slip, but Please try and see how it looks through the eyes of the other competitors. When you add things like that to judgement calls that really screw up a certain team, it can be hugely disheartening.

My final thoughts are that you all have a tough job. You obviously want your teams to have sucess, who doesn't? The admins of this series are top notch, and work their asses off for this series. My only hope is to be a little more aware of all teams, and how their (admins) actions can be perceived.

Thanks,
|||Stu
S3Racing

Gil07

4th June 2008, 23:17

When your team looses a connection or sets fastest lap, a :( or :) from the admins does not show true impartiality. It's nothing more than a simple finger slip, but Please try and see how it looks through the eyes of the other competitors.

When did that ever happen? :schwitz:

DeadWolfBones

4th June 2008, 23:20

Yes, but try see it from our side! It's pretty difficult to accept that because of the marshalls, for some reason, decide too change the rules in the middle of a race, we get punished!

I assume you've also tried to see it from our side, yes?

We've been bitched at all season for the coldness of tires after running behind the SC and for the accidents caused by drivers driving beyond their limits/the limits of their cars on cold tires. Perhaps you can understand our fear of sending a field of ice skaters into this particular T1 on this longest track on the schedule. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

DeadWolfBones

4th June 2008, 23:21

When did that ever happen? :schwitz:

Yeah, I'm not sure what you're on about there, Stu?

dktoben

4th June 2008, 23:25

When did that ever happen? :schwitz:

Z.Iqbal lap 87: :(
Z.Iqbal lap 90: :)

That I belive that it wasen't his opinion to write/press these smiles, is another thing! :)
As written in another topic: Pressing the wrong button because he has 2 lfses open, same as me when i did it when looking into replays and was on the wrong window.

Probatly what happent !

Gil07

4th June 2008, 23:26

Yeah, he was trying to fast forward / slow down replays, but in the wrong window... :)

srdsprinter

5th June 2008, 00:47

Yeah, he was trying to fast forward / slow down replays, but in the wrong window... :)
This is what i was saying. We're not accusing wrong-doing, but the circumstances were questionable to the rest of the field. Extra care is neccesary, even in such a stressfull environment.

DeadWolfBones

5th June 2008, 02:33

I'd still say they're only questionable if you're looking for it.

You'll notice it's the same two or three people who always mention it.

nmanley

5th June 2008, 02:44

This is what i was saying. We're not accusing wrong-doing, but the circumstances were questionable to the rest of the field. Extra care is neccesary, even in such a stressfull environment.

Stu got it part right. Extra care is necessary. However, I DO ACCUSE you guys of non-impartiality and will do so based on last years and this years ACTIONS by you guys. You may not outwardly mean it but it has happened.

BenjiMC, Lets just say you have your opinions and I have mine but I'm basing mine on more than this one series. And a long as I have free speech I'll say what I want how I want to say it. But I will be glad to receive notice the next time you or your favorite team get screwed in the same deal as other here have suffered. :thumb:

nmanley

5th June 2008, 02:45

I'd still say they're only questionable if you're looking for it.

You'll notice it's the same two or three people who always mention it.

Yeah if you took it up the ass as much as LOTF and S3R has you'ed be right with us.

mkinnov8

5th June 2008, 19:36

We've been bitched at all season for the coldness of tires after running behind the SC and for the accidents caused by drivers driving beyond their limits/the limits of their cars on cold tires. Perhaps you can understand our fear of sending a field of ice skaters into this particular T1 on this longest track on the schedule. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Hello passionate people!

Ive seen no "closed" or "private" tags on this discussion, so here is my point..

What do drivers in Formula One and other types of Motorsport do to keep tyres warm while under a safety car?

Exactly.

Perfectly possible in lfs, if the drivers can control the cars. Incidently, the ability of each driver to control his or her car is not the responsibility of the event admins or organisers, but of the actual driver themselves.

Cant really understand it no. Its not your responsibility DWB.

DeadWolfBones

5th June 2008, 20:04

Perfectly possible in lfs, if the drivers can control the cars. Incidently, the ability of each driver to control his or her car is not the responsibility of the event admins or organisers, but of the actual driver themselves.

Cant really understand it no. Its not your responsibility DWB.

We allowed weaving under SC previously and it hurt a lot more than it helped. First of all it doesn't put that much heat in the tires, and second it produced at least one under-SC incident per race. I agree it's not my responsibility to control the drivers' cars for them, but it IS my responsibility to identify patterns of poor behavior and take steps to fix them.

Storm_Cloud

5th June 2008, 22:12

What do drivers in Formula One and other types of Motorsport do to keep tyres warm while under a safety car?

They work the brakes really hard and use the carbon fibre discs as huge hotplates to heat the tyres. Weaving side to side, in LFS or in real life, does not do a lot. Weaving just provides friction, but to really heat tyres you need load.

nmanley

5th June 2008, 22:20

dawesdust_12

5th June 2008, 22:33

I'm gonna speak honesty. I feel that there's a lot of good decisions made by the admins, with great speed especially during the race. Sure some teams might disagree with them on occasion, but imagine yourself in that position, thinking "Do we start, or do we wait, causing more incidents on the restart". Personally on those same grounds I'd take the safer one because incidents are just... bad.

People may criticise the admins for their calls during the race, but I think that the calls they do make are for the better of the event and I do applaud them for doing their best to ensure a fair season. Some might think the admins can improve, which they can because nobody is perfect, but I think that they do a very good job.

Then again, what do I know, I'm only a teenager?

Gil07

5th June 2008, 22:49

I agree with my fellow teenager on this. I understand how hard it is to make decisions, so not everyone will always be happy with them, but people have to learn with it, present complaints in a calm manner and accept the resolutions. If after every incident you start accusing the admins of benefiting this and that and screwing those and the others, beside not helping your cause, it's going make you look a bit silly.

S k i p p y

5th June 2008, 23:10

I really try to stay neutral all the time but I just have to point this out.

The problem is that you were unwilling to change a rule during another race when one of our cars was flipped by another car. You said that you can't just go changing the rules in mid season. So we ended up getting screwed because of somebody else's lack of driving skills. You were not willing to make a change or provision then even though our car was an innocent victim in that case.

Fast forward to race 4 - you say that you can change the rules when you see fit in the best interest of all parties involved.

Ok, do you see the inconsistency here?

I understand why Nolan is angry. He's not alien fast. He has to practice a lot, he puts in a lot of time to prepare. Then he gets pretty much shafted only to find out later that you could of prevented it if you wanted too. It was obviously at the admin's discretion the whole time, at least according to what you've said here.

You'll notice it's the same two or three people who always mention it.Ironically those same 2 or 3 are the ones that feel they are constantly getting the short end of the stick. Ask yourself how you would feel.

I don't envy any of you. Admining these things are a no win situation. Like you said you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Good luck.

Just to clarify, I am not taking sides nor will I. I'm just pointing out the issue that started all this.

rcpilot

5th June 2008, 23:14

I want to make my previous posting clear and to apologize to DWB and Benji as their positions as administers of the series has them at the receiving end of my words. I meant to be harsh but not insulting to you too and it seems to me I have crossed that line more than I wanted to. For that apology offered.

This quote is from a post to my teammates at our forums private section. I share it to clear the air.

As was posted in Round 4: Confirmation Thread (http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=43397) I was listed in the 02 car entry. That came about as there was only one driver available to drive the car as of last Tuesday. So as to not hang out a teammate I offered to put my feelings aside to drive with him even though I knew I hated to drive the FZR and I would suffer in lap times for it. Thankfully Paul "BEERcobra" was able to make the event and relieve me from the driving duties.

I love what LOTA is trying to do with IGTC, I have a house full of wife, GROWN kids, a grand child with unwed mother living with us now and when I take the time to practise and race this series and get the bad end of a deal, I have to make a decision as to weather I can keep doing it. The actions I experienced made the decision for me and I said so in the round three thread. I still stand by it.

I really do wish much success to this series and organization. :thumb:

The NO weaving rule is a good one! The tires cooling down is the SAME for everyone unless some teams use better pit strategy. SO BE IT! Get over it people.
It was great to watch the front running cars making the best of their cold tires on restarts. Very cool to watch the car control....which is what racing is about anyway.
I'm sorry that the incident last race must've sucked for you, but there's no realistic way to fix it. Some drivers didn't have their game faces on and messed up, and you got caught out in it in the worst possible way. But people get caught out in messes through no fault of their own in racing all the time, all you can really do is hand out a penalty if there's a clear offender and go on. During the penalty discussions someone from S3R cited our incident with TDRT as an example to apply to their incident, ignoring the fact that we got a 5 minute penalty through someone else's actions which speaks highly against what's being discussed here. Although, in this case a rule change was made decreasing the 'stuck penalty' length although the new penalty will still hurt just as much as it originally hurt us in a normal race considering we had a 2nd SC under our penalty. But, in your case no viable rule changes are available. Giving someone back position from an incident on track just never happens outside of minor bumps where the two drivers can easily just swap back, and in this case you got hurt by that more than most.

Mainly, this talk of bias has got to go. DWB isn't the only one who makes decisions, and these admins volunteer 5 hours of their weekend to help run this thing giving up their ability to have fun driving for their respective teams. At some point, a decision has to be made and feel free to argue with the decision, but don't outright harass admins that are just here to help. Hell, if you want to just spy on us during the race, come on the vent server and watch as dwb comes out of the admin channel and says hello for a few seconds 2-3 times a race (and we transmit secret messages to eachother via mic switching morse code).

srdsprinter

5th June 2008, 23:17

People may criticise the admins for their calls during the race, but I think that the calls they do make are for the better of the event and I do applaud them for doing their best to ensure a fair season.

It was unfair to TDRT to restart the race a lap early. TDRT would have caught up and had hotter tires, but that's the way the rules are written, and that's what would have been fair. It benefited the other 26 teams, but it was not fair.

I agree with my fellow teenager on this. I understand how hard it is to make decisions, so not everyone will always be happy with them, but people have to learn with it, present complaints in a calm manner and accept the resolutions. If after every incident you start accusing the admins of benefiting this and that and screwing those and the others, beside not helping your cause, it's going make you look a bit silly.

The point we're really trying to make is to have the Right rules in place such that on-the-fly decisions are not neccessary.

Can you guys see where Nolan is coming from here:

-The TDRT was left a minute behind the field against the written rule. None of the (4?) admins were aware which team was being hurt by this.

-The My3id car was not further penalized after breaking the 3-lap pentalty rule. Judgement call not to enforce the rules because of their "confusion". Benefit of the doubt - My3id

-At Fern Bay, the #30 was punted out of the race under a SC. The Judgement call was to enforce the (out-of context) rules and not allow the 30 to rejoin. Benefit of the doubt - against 30

His language was uncalled for. The admins need to come up with their own standards, but to apply them fairly to every team.

Edit -> See Skippy's post Please.

DeadWolfBones

5th June 2008, 23:21

No car will ever be allowed to rejoin the race after going out due to its own actions or due to being taken out. It just won't happen.

edit: I don't know if that was a typo or what, but there is no relationship between LOTA and IGTC, Nolan.

srdsprinter

5th June 2008, 23:23

No car will ever be allowed to rejoin the race after going out due to its own actions or due to being taken out. It just won't happen.
You see the problem here?

Some rules have more flexibility than others. And it seems, like the 3id car, got a pretty flexible rule.

S k i p p y

5th June 2008, 23:24

No car will ever be allowed to rejoin the race after going out due to its own actions or due to being taken out. It just won't happen.

Why's that? Because that's the rule?

Thanks for making my point.

Gil07

5th June 2008, 23:26

DeadWolfBones

5th June 2008, 23:26

The 3id car got more flexibility because the error was on the admins' end.

Being out of a race is not a flexible rule. It's been a rule of all racing since the dawn of the automobile.

If you're seriously incapable of getting it at this point, I'm losing interest in helping you.

S k i p p y

5th June 2008, 23:29

Have you ever seen a car that crashes out be allowed to rejoin the race by magical powers? Thought so. That is the point here. You've probably noticed IGTC is one of the LFS series that has the most focus on realism, no shift-Ps, etc, so there is no reason you should be allowed to rejoin after crashing. All you can hope for (and expect) is a penalty for the offending team.

Do I really need to point out the error in your post. Cars crash all the time. They pit to fix damage, go back out to stay on the lead lap, pit to fix damage, go back out on the lead lap, pit to fix damage, etc. Until they feel like they've fixed as much as they can. It's not magical powers, it's called normal operations.

Gil07

5th June 2008, 23:30

Uhm, yes... Doesn't that happen in IGTC as well?

S k i p p y

5th June 2008, 23:32

Uhm, yes... Doesn't that happen in IGTC as well?
Maybe you should re-read your last post because you just talked in a circle and went no where.

Gil07

5th June 2008, 23:34

Well if a car is flipped, totally wrecked so it can't move or gets outside the race-track (the only cases where you retire in IGTC), you'd have to retire in rl as well. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

BenjiMC

5th June 2008, 23:35

In an endurance race a DNF is classified usually as a car blow out or any other form of terminal damage. If engines could be replaced then they would be, but the rules do not allow that, the same way our rules do not allow a car to rejoin after flipping over. Thats just how it is. This only hurt 1 car, the same way the early restart hurt one car. The restart was to aid the majority of the field and prevent another incident.

nmanley

5th June 2008, 23:40

edit: I don't know if that was a typo or what, but there is no relationship between LOTA and IGTC, Nolan.

Sorry about that. :shrug:

Starting to have a problem here.
The 3id car got more flexibility because the error was on the admins' end.

Being out of a race is not a flexible rule. It's been a rule of all racing since the dawn of the automobile.

If you're seriously incapable of getting it at this point, I'm losing interest in helping you.

You seriously don't think this is a sim and needs to be fun? edit: OK guess there needs to be another series then.

S k i p p y

5th June 2008, 23:41

Well if a car is flipped, totally wrecked so it can't move or gets outside the race-track (the only cases where you retire in IGTC), you'd have to retire in rl as well. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
That made sense. The problem is that if it was in real life, he wouldn't of been punted outside of the track. I've never seen a real life GTR car punted of the track and flipped because of getting hit during a yellow flag. Real life physics don't allow for that. LFS physics however do allow for that. There in lies the problem. The point is that it's not real life, and we (collectively) have to account for that. They should of allowed the car to re-enter the track and get their damage fixed and start at the back. Then they could of given the penalty. Everybody wins and wouldn't be here now.

At any rate, DWB is obviously irritated that people are here arguing this and it's making his authority feel challenged so I'm going to step out and I wish you all the best of luck.

dawesdust_12

5th June 2008, 23:46

Well, if we want to get into rejoining too because "someone" wasn't awake, we could go back to the previous round where I got lag-punted to universe after an incident happened in front of me, that I slowed down to avoid, but people behind me were less aware. Did I complain at the time "ADMINS LULZ, LEMME REJOIN PLZPLZPLZ"? No and I still won't whine about it, it was a racing incident that sadly was terminal to our cars efforts.

We're playing an (incomplete) simulator, some bugs will affect us, especially with such a range of people lag will sometimes be a bitch, I do think though that the fly2universe bug should permit a rejoin (with 1 lap penalty/ 3 min?) but that's my opinion.

Sometimes people make mistakes, but it's really not the fault of anyone. Anyways, isn't the reason we're doing all this to have some fun racing in an extended length event? I still don't know what happened to the 3id car last race, anyone mind refreshing my memory?

srdsprinter

5th June 2008, 23:47

Failed to serve a SG pentalty before the 3-lap window expired, pentalty was not escalted into 45-second SC.

DeadWolfBones

5th June 2008, 23:47

You seriously don't think this is a sim and needs to be fun? edit: OK guess there needs to be another series then.

It really sounds like you either haven't been paying attention to the form of racing this series has used for the past year and a half, or feel that it should be changed to benefit you whenever something doesn't go your way.

Neither is really acceptable for a serious competitor in this series.

S k i p p y

5th June 2008, 23:49

Dustin, getting punted at 150mph in the heat of things racing is a far cry different then getting punted under yellow at 50mph. And for the record I don't believe anyone on our team has ever talked like a script kiddie.

dawesdust_12

5th June 2008, 23:52

I didn't imply that any of you talked that way, I was just using an overdramatic example.

Guys, I think we all need to step back though and remember that this is just for fun. Are we competing for multi-million dollar sponsorship deals? Fancy haircuts? Large breasted latina women? No, we're doing this because we enjoy racing, particularly endurance racing.

BenjiMC

5th June 2008, 23:56

If you guys really feel so badly about this situation, cast your minds back to last season at FE3 and what happened to F1RST racing. They were leading, someone else crashed, they got punted into the sky because of almost identical reasons. Show me a post with them acting in the same manner as your team right now. After all i thought this was about the short SC rather than your team being punted off track by someone else and you guys not getting over the fact that the seriousness of the incident is on a much different scale.

dawesdust_12

5th June 2008, 23:58

Benji - manner. I don't think they acted in the same mansion. :p

S k i p p y

5th June 2008, 23:59

....or feel that it should be changed to benefit you whenever something doesn't go your way.

I guess on a positive note, you guys feel the same way about each other. :D

Hello Pot, I'm Mr. Kettle.

nmanley

6th June 2008, 00:01

Mainly, this talk of bias has got to go. DWB isn't the only one who makes decisions, and these admins volunteer 5 hours of their weekend to help run this thing giving up their ability to have fun driving for their respective teams. At some point, a decision has to be made and feel free to argue with the decision, but don't outright harass admins that are just here to help. Hell, if you want to just spy on us during the race, come on the vent server and watch as dwb comes out of the admin channel and says hello for a few seconds 2-3 times a race (and we transmit secret messages to eachother via mic switching morse code).

Agreed and thanks for your feelings. :thumb:

S k i p p y

6th June 2008, 00:05

If you guys really feel so badly about this situation, cast your minds back to last season at FE3 and what happened to F1RST racing. They were leading, someone else crashed, they got punted into the sky because of almost identical reasons.
So because they chose not to argue then nobody should?
Show me a post with them acting in the same manor as your team right now.
That seems a bit derogatory......
After all i thought this was about the short SC rather than your team being punted off track by someone else and you guys not getting over the fact that the seriousness of the incident is on a much different scale.
It is about that, which is also about the other. It is about both because one moment you can't change rules no matter what, then all of a sudden you change them when you feel fit.

Damn, all I see anybody asking is that you guys are consistent. They aren't asking for their race back. They are simply asking for consistency. You guys are taking this crap way too personal.

dawesdust_12

6th June 2008, 00:06

Heck, is anyone gonna call impartiality on one of the Mercury helpers for him helping UKCT during pre-race practice on our setup? Guys, I'm pretty confident in the admins, Ben giving up time on his Vacation (I think?) to admin.

@rcpilot - I'll be sure to go watch Ben going .--. .. - .. -. -. --- .-- during the race, prior to a safety car :p

nmanley

6th June 2008, 00:08

It really sounds like you either haven't been paying attention to the form of racing this series has used for the past year and a half, or feel that it should be changed to benefit you whenever something doesn't go your way.

Neither is really acceptable for a serious competitor in this series.

I've been paying close attention and that's what got you upset so I will just lose interest now again since you can't be take seriously from past actions.

srdsprinter

6th June 2008, 00:11

Damn, all I see anybody asking is that you guys are consistent. They aren't asking for their race back. They are simply asking for consistency. You guys are taking this crap way too personal.

QuotedForTruth

DeadWolfBones

6th June 2008, 00:16

It is about that, which is also about the other. It is about both because one moment you can't change rules no matter what, then all of a sudden you change them when you feel fit.

Damn, all I see anybody asking is that you guys are consistent. They aren't asking for their race back. They are simply asking for consistency. You guys are taking this crap way too personal.

The reasons that the rules were bent in this race (2 lap SC period/3id's extended penalty period) have been covered, so I won't reiterate them here.

The situation with the #30 at FE3 would not have been a case of "bending" a rule; it would have been a case of completely re-structuring the way IGTC racing works to serve the interests of a single team.

The decision to cut short the first SC period benefited 24 teams and disadvantaged 1. The decision to allow the 3id car it's extra laps was an acknowledgment of an admin error.

If you can't see the difference between these and the situation with your car, I don't know what to tell you.

Both the "bent" rules are something that will be looked at in preparation for the subsequent rounds, and every effort will be made to see that they don't come into play again. None of us felt good about them at the time, but in terms of a cost/benefit analysis they were 100% the correct decisions to make.

You may want to stick to a dogmatic, black & white interpretation of how rules will be handled, but the IGTC admins have the right (and will exercise the right) to make these calls when they are needed in unexpected circumstances. After they've been needed, they will be examined and the rules will be changed to keep them from being needed again.

That's always been the way our rules system has evolved.

S k i p p y

6th June 2008, 00:22

First of all I don't appreciate your line that implies I may be stupid.

That said, it's not what you did but what you said.

You said in the other circumstance that its a rule and we don't change rules mid season. Then you change rules now. If you can't read what you post, you are beyond help yourself.

Maybe if you had taken the time write such a rule to distinguish what rules you can change and what rules you can't change then you would of avoided all of this in the first place. That's your problem, not mine. You are trying to dig yourself out of a hole.

I told you I wouldn't take sides because I honestly believe that you are doing the best you can with what you have to work with. However, trying to prod me is simply going to piss me off and then I will take sides. Cya.

pearcy_2k7

6th June 2008, 01:12

evilpimp

6th June 2008, 01:39

seems like an S3R vs Admin battle here, both of you (admins and S3R) are just going round in circles mentioning things that have been said and explained countless times throughtout this thread, it puts a dampner on what looked like a very good race (for the majority) Not everyone is going to be happy, but you have to live with it, after all this is the admins league, they decide the rules, some of them are imput from personel on this forum, if they decide to make a fair judgement call, that benefits either most of the runners or a team given an unfair disadvantage (not a racing incident etc) Its shouldn't have as much speculation as is now.
+1
This should be left alone now, imo.

I dunno about you but in other sports I seem to see that the ref's decision is final and someone trying to contest it usually gets into some kind of trouble.

I think, personally, that MAYBE the admins made a wrong decision (not really sure wether or not it was) but making it into such a huge deal isn't really worth it. Imo, you should have simply PM'd the admins telling them that you feel that this was a bad call and it gave you an unfair advantage and ask that the rules are reviewed so that this doesn't happen again. They would probably answer wether or not they think it was a good call and tell you if they reviewed the rules and that's all there is to it. You can't keep on going and ''fighting'' the race admins about this when they clearly gave they're opinion. Imo, once again.

rcpilot

6th June 2008, 06:35

I honestly don't get where this question of consistency is coming from. Consistency in what? Comparing my3id's stop & go, tdrt getting screwed by the safety car, your getting hit under the SC at fern bay, us getting hit by TDRT at fern bay, they're all apples and oranges when put together in one big basket. On the other hand, if you look at it this way, the admins making decisions based on making up for their mistakes, and the admins making decisions for the safety of the field, it becomes very consistent. Admins making up for their mistakes, my3id, us & tdrt adjusting the rules post-incident so the penalty's not so outrageous. Admins making decisions for the safety of the field, banning weaving, letting the field go a lap early at ASH. And as you add most incidents and rule changes/clarifications to this they fit neatly into these brackets.

On the other hand, S3R's incident has nothing to do with any of this. You cannot let a car that got knocked out in an accident back in. Simply because there is no viable cutoff point for this. I got spun around at fern bay in a LOTA fo8 season within a split second because I clipped a curb and was then thrown into a wall backwards at 120 mph while leading by 30 seconds, a probable LFS bug. Should I have gotten my lead back? I obviously made a slight mistake but I shouldn't have had to pay for it that harshly. I got thrown over a wall and off the course by clipping a tire at fern bay in the lx6 in a BOTT race in one of the chicanes. I made a small mistake, but an obvious LFS bug made me pay for it dearly, should I have been put back in the race? The truth is, no. There's no saying what would've happened without the help from LFS bugs, and what happened, happened, and at that point it's time to look on to the next race. These cases may be a bit worse than yours in terms of my responsibility, but can you really say that you would've come out well from getting t-boned at 50 mph without the aid of an LFS bug?

bdshan

6th June 2008, 11:31

I'm sorry that the incident last race must've sucked for you, but there's no realistic way to fix it. Some drivers didn't have their game faces on and messed up, and you got caught out in it in the worst possible way. But people get caught out in messes through no fault of their own in racing all the time, all you can really do is hand out a penalty if there's a clear offender and go on. During the penalty discussions someone from S3R cited our incident with TDRT as an example to apply to their incident, ignoring the fact that we got a 5 minute penalty through someone else's actions which speaks highly against what's being discussed here. Although, in this case a rule change was made decreasing the 'stuck penalty' length although the new penalty will still hurt just as much as it originally hurt us in a normal race considering we had a 2nd SC under our penalty. But, in your case no viable rule changes are available. Giving someone back position from an incident on track just never happens outside of minor bumps where the two drivers can easily just swap back, and in this case you got hurt by that more than most.

Mainly, this talk of bias has got to go. DWB isn't the only one who makes decisions, and these admins volunteer 5 hours of their weekend to help run this thing giving up their ability to have fun driving for their respective teams. At some point, a decision has to be made and feel free to argue with the decision, but don't outright harass admins that are just here to help. Hell, if you want to just spy on us during the race, come on the vent server and watch as dwb comes out of the admin channel and says hello for a few seconds 2-3 times a race (and we transmit secret messages to eachother via mic switching morse code).

Very well said Corey. If everyone here presented there positions in the same well thought out and respectful manner this would be a better place.

Sure I feel victimized sometimes, but 24 hours after a race it is behind me and and I look the the next race. Who is up for a little bonding over pizza and beer?

DeadWolfBones

6th June 2008, 12:47

::raises hand::

dawesdust_12

6th June 2008, 15:34

Anyone bringing root beer for the minors? :p

S k i p p y

6th June 2008, 17:15

We can't change the rules mid-race.
I was uncomfortable with altering the rule on the fly (as I always am) but the situation seemed pressing.

If nobody can see the problem.....

I give up. Obviously there are certain people that can't admit that they are wrong and will keep arguing forever. It's not worth my time. For those of you benefiting from these types of decisions, that's cool, you'll have a great season. For the ones getting screwed, just go find a different league. It's not worth the aggravation for anybody.

Corey the above 2 quotes are inconsistent. If they were consistent they would say the same thing. The 2 incidents were entirely different. The problem is that a person was told that the reason for the decision was because there will be no rule changes. That person took that as the final answer. Maybe a better explanation would of helped at the time. Now we are here, those same people that took that for their answer are now reading that the admins can change stuff whenever they like. Which makes them feel short changed that their incident didn't even warrant a decent explanation but simply a quick answer citing rule changing. Take it for what you will, my eye's don't lie to me. I'm trying to get the admins to realize that whatever they say can harm them later. That's why they need to be consistent in their statements.

rcpilot

6th June 2008, 19:56

Humbleridderen

7th June 2008, 13:20

To make it short:
I agree that the decision is wrong not following a rule in the middle of the race. If the rule is not good, you should change it after the race.

It´s bad manner to sacrifice one team in favour of the others and if the whole field can´t race wilh cold tyres, it´s their problem, not the TDRTs problem or the admins.

If the drivers are not able to drive with cold tyres, they should not be allowed to participate.

My advice: Race admins, Never interfere in the races. Only when rules are clearly and without question not obeyed and the normal race conduct as described in the general race description. You are just making confusion and injustice to someone and in the end you will loose confidence and respect!

S k i p p y

7th June 2008, 19:22

You know what, forget it. There used to be a long post here lambasting some people for their actions here and continuing the argument, but I believe in 'if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all' in these situations. Nothing I could say can counteract an argument that wandered away from having any point long ago and I can only make this situation worse.

So basically you're telling me that you either a) can't argue a point and keep it civil or b) don't a valid arguing point to begin with.

Let me put it so plainly that a child could understand:

- I have not taken sides.
- I have not "lambasted" or bashed any admin or team or anybody else, ever.
- I have not ever been directly involved in an incident with anybody or any rule in the IGTC.

- I have praised the admins for doing the best that they can.
- I have provided proof that their is an inconsistency in the way rules are handled.
- I have merely offered a suggestion for the future.

Everybody keeps trying to turn this into a "A vs. B" thing and it isn't. I came here of my own free will. I read this forum on my own. I have never been directly involved with an incident that had anything to do with my team or any other. If a driver from my team has a legitimate gripe with anybody then it is their place to argue it not mine. What's done is done so there's no point in trying to change the past. I'm looking towards the future and what can be done to prevent another fiasco from happening. If you guys don't want to accept suggestions maybe you should make that a rule as well. I would of left this thread after one post if I had been told "thanks, we will work on it because it's a problem". Oh no, you guys had to turn it into what it is because you either don't want help or you can't see the obvious discrepancy written in your very own words.

I ask that the next time you feel the undying need to hit the reply button, that you take the time to actually read all the posts.

DeadWolfBones

7th June 2008, 19:41

Having read Corey's post before he deleted it, I'm pretty sure that it's option c) he didn't want to fan the increasingly redundant flames here.

S k i p p y

7th June 2008, 19:52

Having read Corey's post before he deleted it, I'm pretty sure that it's option c) he didn't want to fan the increasingly redundant flames here.
It still doesn't negate the fact that I was only offering a suggestion from a neutral standpoint. Everybody seems to want to turn it into something else. It's obvious that my help is not wanted and it seems that its actually frowned upon. Silly me thinking I could save you guys some grief by covering yourselves from a very minor flaw. I know its hard to do what you are doing and you are doing the best that you can with what you have to work with. Good luck in the future.

EDIT: The only thing making this conversation redundant is the fact that one half is not accepting the proof and the other half is having a hard time understanding why. Further, I have yet to flame a single person, so I have to think that it wasn't option c) after all. Stop making this a "us against them". Stop skirting the issue. Every time I come up with yet another way to explain it, you skirt it and turn it into something else like you did above. Address the issue and I'll happily leave this thread and we can get on with the pizza and beer.

rcpilot

7th June 2008, 22:53

Every time I come up with yet another way to explain it, you skirt it and turn it into something else like you did above.
The reason I didn't reply coincides with this. You've blamed other people for perpetuating arguments, yet here we are arguing about something from one month ago. And it's not that you've brought up other ways to explain it, your team has presented multiple completely unrelated arguments just in order to extend this argument and there doesn't seem to be any central point. I call that arguing just for the sake of argument. That is why I'm getting tired of this and leaving this thread. I will admit, this last point is a good one but it's also naive to hold one of several admins to a quick reply he made in the middle of a race dealing with an entirely different type of situation, that wasn't even the right answer to the original question, and isn't covered in the official rules. And it's also naive to say your team accepted that answer and moved on, the argument continued last month over several more pages.

And if you really want to talk about perpetuating arguments and choosy reading.

1. You butchered your comprehension of my post and took it personally.
2. You dropped it, I dropped it, yet, we're still here? I would've preferred just leaving this alone but I don't like words being put in my mouth.

S k i p p y

8th June 2008, 01:44

First of all that comment was not even aimed at you because I don't need you to agree with me.

The reason I didn't reply coincides with this. You've blamed other people for perpetuating arguments, yet here we are arguing about something from one month ago.
See there's your problem. I'm not talking about one month ago. I was using it as an example at best. I was talking about the flip flopping that is being done and the grief it is bringing the admins.
And it's not that you've brought up other ways to explain it, your team has presented multiple completely unrelated arguments just in order to extend this argument and there doesn't seem to be any central point.
There you go again lumping me in with every one else. If you can't see the point I'm trying to make, I don't know what to tell you. The point I was making, in no less that half a dozen ways, was to help the admins not argue with them. I could care less what happened a month ago, its water under the bridge. The problem with this is that now there has been a flip-flop in the middle of a race instead of holding off for future rounds.
I will admit, this last point is a good one but it's also naive to hold one of several admins to a quick reply he made in the middle of a race dealing with an entirely different type of situation, that wasn't even the right answer to the original question, and isn't covered in the official rules.
I am not holding any admin to any reply that he made in the heat of the moment. I am trying to point out a flaw that needs to be covered in the future to prevent such an argument. The only reason I used those 2 quotes was to point out a discrepancy that needs to be fixed in the future. If you can't see that I am trying to help you guys for the future, then you are the one that is naive.
And it's also naive to say your team accepted that answer and moved on, the argument continued last month over several more pages.
If you would take a moment to go back and look at that thread you will see that I took no part in that argument. Again, you are turning this into a "us against them" scenario when it isn't.
1. You butchered your comprehension of my post and took it personally.
Don't tell me how my comprehension should work. I took it like I took it and that is it. If you wish to be a bit more tactile that is fine but don't blame for how i interpret your post. That is unless you are willing to explain every little detail of your post so that I don't take it the wrong way.
2. You dropped it, I dropped it, yet, we're still here? I would've preferred just leaving this alone but I don't like words being put in my mouth.
I would prefer for someone to say "ok". I mean ffs, I've stated throughout this deal that I was offering a suggestion for the future. To which I've been greeted with hostility and condescending attitudes. I don't care what happened last Saturday, I don't care what happened last month. I care about the ability to race in the future with a rule set that's not going to be changed in mid-stride. Did it affect me this time? No. Could it affect me at some point? Yes.

For what its worth I never put any words in your mouth. I made an assumption based on my comprehension of your post. Just like you've made an assumption that I've come here to bash admins and create a ruckus. Never mind the fact that I've stated over and over that I was making a suggestion and not a demand.

Between admins that care less what the common person thinks, helpful or not, and people like you that can't, no matter how plainly I put it, comprehend what I'm trying to do here civilly - I've decided that you nor the admins nor the IGTC deserve any more of my time. Which is probably without a doubt what you want to hear anyway.