GPGSL S8 Round 14 -Monaco Grand Prix - The RD's Short Straw >> SHOCKING NEWS AT PAGE 204!!! <<

I know, but I should have been more active anyway, so the confusion shouldn't have happened.

Just going to adapt Minardi's livery to the line up change

---

My GPGSL Career

WOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! A PODIUM!! Cant remember when i visited the podium the last time?

I´m really happy to have scored a 3rd place for Christel VXR we have been working so hard to get a car on the podium! And i´m pleased that the move in T10 was succesful =P

Now we just need to get Jack´s car up and running!

Great race for us!!!


One Racing driver and team manager
GPGSL-3: champion in 2007/2013/2014!
GPGSL-4: testdrivers champion in Season 11!

The wrong passage in the rules section has been changed. To give another clarification: There is no distinction between the ten day period and the fourteen day period! Drivers have to be inactive from one activity check to the next one, which is fourteen days! The ten day passage has been altered, since it was wrong by mistake, and is not in effect anymore!

---

My 2 Cents: Let the rules stand as is. It always can happen that you miss to post 14 days. With the rule getting penalized after 1 mistake would be really strict, maybe too strict.
1. warning: nearly nothing happens
2. warning: Like a last warning
3. warning: Byebye
For me this is the best system.
For the race result: Ben Johnson won the race. It'd be unfair to strip him from the victory or the points. Also the perf points shouldn't be stripped, because the rules were clear beforehands. You could change it for the next races, although I wouldn't do it.

JohnMaverick schrieb:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm just sitting in a lecture, so I couldn't fully
> follow the discussion here.

hey, you should pay attention to the lecture instead of reading gpg.org

---

used to be GPGSL's Nick Heidfeld

n00binio schrieb:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JohnMaverick schrieb:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'm just sitting in a lecture, so I couldn't
> fully
> > follow the discussion here.
>
> hey, you should pay attention to the lecture
> instead of reading gpg.org


But it was so boooooooring!


GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)

Just keep the rules as they are, they are ok like that.
It is a progressive penalty system that allows you to just forgot and miss the deadline one or two times before getting fired.

So Ben got a penalty boost and won the race with a lower perf value than the other drivers ? I don't mind it, even if I think that's not really normal, and surely not what was intended at first thought.
But I think that if there's something wrong with the rules, it should be with the new perf system we are using this season.
Its willing was to narrow the gap between top drivers/teams and back-markers. That's not what we got at the moment. It's all messed up : more or less new teams and back-markers take the good points while top performers struggle with troubles. At the moment we're at the point where using boost gives you more chances of having troubles and a penalty makes you win. Strange isn't it ?

So maybe we should take a look at this first, and check if the new perf system is running as expected or not. And correct it if necessary.
My 2 cents on it.

---

EricMoinet Schreef:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just keep the rules as they are, they are ok like
> that.
> It is a progressive penalty system that allows you
> to just forgot and miss the deadline one or two
> times before getting fired.
>
> So Ben got a penalty boost and won the race with a
> lower perf value than the other drivers ? I don't
> mind it, even if I think that's not really normal,
> and surely not what was intended at first
> thought.
> But I think that if there's something wrong with
> the rules, it should be with the new perf system
> we are using this season.
> Its willing was to narrow the gap between top
> drivers/teams and back-markers. That's not what we
> got at the moment. It's all messed up : more or
> less new teams and back-markers take the good
> points while top performers struggle with
> troubles. At the moment we're at the point where
> using boost gives you more chances of having
> troubles and a penalty makes you win. Strange
> isn't it ?
>
> So maybe we should take a look at this first, and
> check if the new perf system is running as
> expected or not. And correct it if necessary.
> My 2 cents on it.

Except from Ben we did use a boost though. It's too early to tell whe the rule changes did t the series, we are only 3 races underway.
Nobody excepted Vettel to dominate the 2nd half of the 2012 F1 season. Mabey AMR and MPR will get back to the top soon and and are the Merdcedes engine just not suiting Team Shadow :p

The idea of the rules were to narrow the advantage AMR, TSS and more or less MPR had. Makeing it ess predictable and not the GPGbyEdG. I think that worked !

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

"If in doubt, Flat out."

xSilvermanx Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My 2 Cents: Let the rules stand as is. It always
> can happen that you miss to post 14 days. With the
> rule getting penalized after 1 mistake would be
> really strict, maybe too strict.
> 1. warning: nearly nothing happens
> 2. warning: Like a last warning
> 3. warning: Byebye
> For me this is the best system.
> For the race result: Ben Johnson won the race.
> It'd be unfair to strip him from the victory or
> the points. Also the perf points shouldn't be
> stripped, because the rules were clear
> beforehands. You could change it for the next
> races, although I wouldn't do it.


Agree on this: I was one hell of a ghost driver in last part of S7 (although I never won, so no one complained much) and I have to say it looks so foolish thinking about it now. I mean, that's 3 warning before being kicked out, (it was a whole month, even more now). And I (like Ben, probably) could post one time saying why I couldn't post before. As for the race win points should be taken away only if the driver is disqualified.

---

---

I dont know much about the discussion going now, all I care about is my race result! It was a very poor qualifying, and the racepace was also not good!

Lets focus for the next race, I hope the team will keep their progress up this year so we can fight for the title.

Race starts: 141 | Points: 886 | Podiums: 35 | Race wins: 10
 

 
Follow me on: Twitter | Instagram | Facebook

I agree that we shouldn't strip him of the win retrospectively, I don't think we should change the rules at this stage - even if it was unfair.

---

X (@ed24f1)

Rico écrivait:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Except from Ben we did use a boost though. It's
> too early to tell whe the rule changes did t the
> series, we are only 3 races underway.
> Nobody excepted Vettel to dominate the 2nd half of
> the 2012 F1 season. Mabey AMR and MPR will get
> back to the top soon and and are the Merdcedes
> engine just not suiting Team Shadow :p
>
> The idea of the rules were to narrow the advantage
> AMR, TSS and more or less MPR had. Makeing it ess
> predictable and not the GPGbyEdG. I think that
> worked !

I agree with you. Just that it became from 'rather predictable' to 'shuffled to a weirdly unpredictable way'. But let's see what happens in the future.

---

Ooer... thought we'd have a better weekend after the free practice results. hm...

Important Announcement.

A problem has been detected in the performance calculator. This error has caused all teams with the exception of Aston Martin Racing, to accumulate engine power too quickly and was discovered when it was noticed that AMR's engine bhp was lower than certain teams despite lying in 2nd in the WCC and starting with the joint highest bhp.

In previous seasons, teams points totals have been divided by 6 and added to the teams starting engine bhp. Because the winner of a race in season 8 now scores double the points, the rules were changed to divide the total by 12 instead. Unfortunately, when Stuart edited the performance calculator excel file he altered the formula for AMR, but neglected to copy it to the other teams cells, therefore causing the rest of the grid to gain bhp twice as fast. As this error wasn't discovered until after the Singapore GP, the team bhp difference was magnified further. Obviously, the more successful teams have gained more than others.

Here is a table of extra bhp for each team at rounds 2 & 3:

Team / R2 / R3 (Total)
TSM / +2 / +3 (+5)
MPR / +3 / +5 (+8)
TNR / +3 / +5 (+8)
VXR / +1 / +2 (+3)
SMM / +2 / +3 (+5)
SMS / +1 / +3 (+4)
SCR / +4 / +7 (+11)
MAC / +1 / +3 (+4)
DMR / 0 / +2 (+2)
ONE / +3 / +5 (+8)

As the advantage was gained over two rounds, it would be unfair to expect it to be repaid in just one, therefore, teams will be given an average deduction in their engine bhp for the next two rounds. If the total bhp is an odd number (e.g. TSM, VXR, SMM & SCR), an higher deduction will be used in the next round and then the smaller one as follows:

Team / R3 / R4 (Total)
TSM / -3 / -2 (-5)
MPR / -4 / -4 (-8)
TNR / -4 / -4 (-8)
VXR / -2 / -1 (-3)
SMM / -3 / -2 (-5)
SMS / -2 / -2 (-4)
SCR / -6 / -5 (-11)
MAC / -2 / -2 (-4)
DMR / -1 / -1 (-2)
ONE / -4 / -4 (-8)

The GPGSL Perf Team apologise unreservedly for this major cock up and hope our long record of accurate perf keeping will be kept in mind by all the members of the series. Once again, sorry!

---

What is the situation if teams have asked for a boost for the next round? Will any requested boost be factored into the equation? For example if TSM has requested 3 BHP will the -3 be subtracted then the 3BHP given?

---

[www.mediafire.com] Some say you should click it, you know you want to. [www.gp4central.com] <----GP4 Central

Actually, I hadn't thought of that Mal. I would assume that would be the case. In effect they will be running with extra bhp anyway. All boost requests will have to be binding, I'm afraid. Of course this will mean no-one will ask for a boost in the following round I'm sure.



5 x WCC - S5, S6, S7, S8, S10 | 4 x WDC - S5 Nick van der Voort ; S6, S7, S8 Ed Greenhalgh | 2 x WTC - S6 Stuart Ingers; S8 Andrei Sevastian

It is my opinion that the entire excess boost should be stripped immediately. Fair enough the advantage was given over two races by a simple mistake in the calculator, however why allow the advantage to continue for another round, or two? Surely it is unfair to the team that did not gain an advantage by the mistake in the perf calculator? Although I suspect an official protest will not be forthcoming lol.
I request a re-think on the option please.
So, my choice is to completely remove the advantage that has been given, then apply any boost requests for the next two rounds as normal. Get those engines back to where they should be asap.

---

[www.mediafire.com] Some say you should click it, you know you want to. [www.gp4central.com] <----GP4 Central

Further, let's make the assumption that ONE Racing requests a 4BHP boost for the next round. You would subtract the 4BHP excess, then re-instate it as valid request for boost. So ONE Racing is still running the next round at a major advantage is it not? I hope that this scenario bolsters my argument for an immediate re-adjustment of the engines to where they should be, and before any teams blow their engines to smithereens on the track.

---

[www.mediafire.com] Some say you should click it, you know you want to. [www.gp4central.com] <----GP4 Central



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2012 10:14PM by mortal.