GPGSL Rules and Regulations Discussion Thread
Posted by GPGSL
Good idea Maikel ! So let's go for it 
7. Dividing scored points to perf points.
A) Keep the current dividing by 6.
B) Change to dividing by 8. (Slower progress to grow in bhp)
Guess what ? I vote for B
Maybe we should also make a vote for the idea digged up by Dan, many people were discussing of it with different advices about it :
8. Feeder series or not feeder series ?
A) No feeder series.
B) Waiting team liveries on testers' cars.
C) Feeder series with 12 races.
D) Feeder series with 17 races.
I would vote for C
7. Dividing scored points to perf points.
A) Keep the current dividing by 6.
B) Change to dividing by 8. (Slower progress to grow in bhp)
Guess what ? I vote for B
Maybe we should also make a vote for the idea digged up by Dan, many people were discussing of it with different advices about it :
8. Feeder series or not feeder series ?
A) No feeder series.
B) Waiting team liveries on testers' cars.
C) Feeder series with 12 races.
D) Feeder series with 17 races.
I would vote for C
EricMoinet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good idea Maikel ! So let's go for it
>
> 7. Dividing scored points to perf points.
> A) Keep the current dividing by 6.
> B) Change to dividing by 8. (Slower progress to
> grow in bhp)
>
> Guess what ? I vote for B
>
>
> Maybe we should also make a vote for the idea
> digged up by Dan, many people were discussing of
> it with different advices about it :
>
> 8. Feeder series or not feeder series ?
> A) No feeder series.
> B) Waiting team liveries on testers' cars.
> C) Feeder series with 12 races.
> D) Feeder series with 17 races.
>
> I would vote for C
Huh???
Option "B" - waiting teams liveries on tester's cars?
Am i reading this correctly? So why am i a team owner, running in my own test seat because that is the only way i can represent my OWN team? Why on earth would i want some other aspiring team owners livery on my car?
As for the Feeder Series - sounds great in principle, but the problem is finding volunteers to run it....
GPGSL Team Owner Debut - Melbourne, Season 8 - present
GPGSL Test Debut - Hungary, Season 4. GPGSL Race Debut - Adelaide, Season 5.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good idea Maikel ! So let's go for it
>
> 7. Dividing scored points to perf points.
> A) Keep the current dividing by 6.
> B) Change to dividing by 8. (Slower progress to
> grow in bhp)
>
> Guess what ? I vote for B
>
>
> Maybe we should also make a vote for the idea
> digged up by Dan, many people were discussing of
> it with different advices about it :
>
> 8. Feeder series or not feeder series ?
> A) No feeder series.
> B) Waiting team liveries on testers' cars.
> C) Feeder series with 12 races.
> D) Feeder series with 17 races.
>
> I would vote for C
Huh???
Option "B" - waiting teams liveries on tester's cars?
Am i reading this correctly? So why am i a team owner, running in my own test seat because that is the only way i can represent my OWN team? Why on earth would i want some other aspiring team owners livery on my car?
As for the Feeder Series - sounds great in principle, but the problem is finding volunteers to run it....
GPGSL Team Owner Debut - Melbourne, Season 8 - present
GPGSL Test Debut - Hungary, Season 4. GPGSL Race Debut - Adelaide, Season 5.
A feeder series is not going to happen, the GPGSL has been against it from the gitgo. That goes all the way back to the WGP and the W300. Finding people with the commitment to run it is the stumbling block, the GPGSL has enough to do now without trying to run another series as well. Those on the waiting list will just have to have patience and wait for a vacancy. It might seem a bit harsh to some, but it is the reality of it.
[www.mediafire.com] Some say you should click it, you know you want to. [www.gp4central.com] <----GP4 Central
[www.mediafire.com] Some say you should click it, you know you want to.
[www.gp4central.com] <----GP4 CentralAs Mal has already stated, there will not be a feeder series. There isn't the support for it. If the teams on the waiting list can persuade a current team to run with their livery on the test cars, then that would be acceptable, but other than that, no.
Eric, I think you need to go back and check your figures. Currently, team's bhp is divided by 12 not 6, this is because of the change to the new point system. I have looked into the difference between the new points system and the old and worked out the how much each team's total has increased. This is the result:
Aston Martin Racing 240%
One Racing 250%
Martini Paddock Racing 290%
Scuderia Minardi 300%
Southern Cross Racing 310%
Team Shadow Mercedes 340%
Demon Racing 320%
Snake Motorsports 370%
True North Racing 440%
Christel VXR 510%
MAC Racing 740%
Should the new points system stay for perfs, which is looking likely, then dividing by 8 (or should that be 16?), then the lower teams would suffer more than the top teams.
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
Eric, I think you need to go back and check your figures. Currently, team's bhp is divided by 12 not 6, this is because of the change to the new point system. I have looked into the difference between the new points system and the old and worked out the how much each team's total has increased. This is the result:
Aston Martin Racing 240%
One Racing 250%
Martini Paddock Racing 290%
Scuderia Minardi 300%
Southern Cross Racing 310%
Team Shadow Mercedes 340%
Demon Racing 320%
Snake Motorsports 370%
True North Racing 440%
Christel VXR 510%
MAC Racing 740%
Should the new points system stay for perfs, which is looking likely, then dividing by 8 (or should that be 16?), then the lower teams would suffer more than the top teams.
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
"Currently, team's bhp is divided by 12 not 6"
I took it in the rules on first page of S8 thread. :-/
For the rest, as I said I'm not the one complaining about the gap between top teams and backward teams. If nobody want it, if nobody react about it, just bin it.
I took it in the rules on first page of S8 thread. :-/
For the rest, as I said I'm not the one complaining about the gap between top teams and backward teams. If nobody want it, if nobody react about it, just bin it.
That was my mistake. There was a lot to rewrite for this season and I forgot about that, to be honest. However, Stu is right. Since the points were doubled, we also doubled the divider to 12. I admittedly forgot that myself (and since the excel file does this automatically I wasn't made aware of it after the problem at the start of the season got fixed).
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
JohnMaverick écrivait:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That was my mistake. There was a lot to rewrite
> for this season and I forgot about that, to be
> honest. However, Stu is right. Since the points
> were doubled, we also doubled the divider to 12. I
> admittedly forgot that myself (and since the excel
> file does this automatically I wasn't made aware
> of it after the problem at the start of the season
> got fixed).
Hence why all your demonstrations proved the gap was closer, isn't it ?
So, you've been arguing all this time to prove I was wrong with my proposal while you were doing it with a higher rate ??
Fair enough me think.
-------------------------------------------------------
> That was my mistake. There was a lot to rewrite
> for this season and I forgot about that, to be
> honest. However, Stu is right. Since the points
> were doubled, we also doubled the divider to 12. I
> admittedly forgot that myself (and since the excel
> file does this automatically I wasn't made aware
> of it after the problem at the start of the season
> got fixed).
Hence why all your demonstrations proved the gap was closer, isn't it ?
So, you've been arguing all this time to prove I was wrong with my proposal while you were doing it with a higher rate ??
Fair enough me think.
Gui, you was excluded from the series due to your inactivity. This is only for season 8, however. You are very welcome to come back for season 9. Unfortunately, I believe all the seats for next season are taken, the fact that Dan has left you out is between you and him.
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
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
EricMoinet schrieb:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JohnMaverick écrivait:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That was my mistake. There was a lot to rewrite
> > for this season and I forgot about that, to be
> > honest. However, Stu is right. Since the points
> > were doubled, we also doubled the divider to 12.
> I
> > admittedly forgot that myself (and since the
> excel
> > file does this automatically I wasn't made
> aware
> > of it after the problem at the start of the
> season
> > got fixed).
>
>
> Hence why all your demonstrations proved the gap
> was closer, isn't it ?
> So, you've been arguing all this time to prove I
> was wrong with my proposal while you were doing it
> with a higher rate ??
> Fair enough me think.
That is one side of the medal. But there is one point you forget. Not only the divider was doubled, but the points were, too, and they were extended to all drivers! Doubling the points and the divider alone does not make any difference. There's no difference whether you divide 15 by 6 or 30 by 12. It only starts to make a difference from P4 onwards and because all drivers were given points and not only the first twelve. That is what primarily brought the drivers and teams closer together, not the higher divider.
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
-------------------------------------------------------
> JohnMaverick écrivait:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That was my mistake. There was a lot to rewrite
> > for this season and I forgot about that, to be
> > honest. However, Stu is right. Since the points
> > were doubled, we also doubled the divider to 12.
> I
> > admittedly forgot that myself (and since the
> excel
> > file does this automatically I wasn't made
> aware
> > of it after the problem at the start of the
> season
> > got fixed).
>
>
> Hence why all your demonstrations proved the gap
> was closer, isn't it ?
> So, you've been arguing all this time to prove I
> was wrong with my proposal while you were doing it
> with a higher rate ??
> Fair enough me think.
That is one side of the medal. But there is one point you forget. Not only the divider was doubled, but the points were, too, and they were extended to all drivers! Doubling the points and the divider alone does not make any difference. There's no difference whether you divide 15 by 6 or 30 by 12. It only starts to make a difference from P4 onwards and because all drivers were given points and not only the first twelve. That is what primarily brought the drivers and teams closer together, not the higher divider.
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
So, a higher divider could close the gap a little bit more IMO.
JohnMaverick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> EricMoinet schrieb:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > JohnMaverick écrivait:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > That was my mistake. There was a lot to
> rewrite
> > > for this season and I forgot about that, to
> be
> > > honest. However, Stu is right. Since the
> points
> > > were doubled, we also doubled the divider to
> 12.
> > I
> > > admittedly forgot that myself (and since the
> > excel
> > > file does this automatically I wasn't made
> > aware
> > > of it after the problem at the start of the
> > season
> > > got fixed).
> >
> >
> > Hence why all your demonstrations proved the
> gap
> > was closer, isn't it ?
> > So, you've been arguing all this time to prove
> I
> > was wrong with my proposal while you were doing
> it
> > with a higher rate ??
> > Fair enough me think.
>
>
> That is one side of the medal. But there is one
> point you forget. Not only the divider was
> doubled, but the points were, too, and they were
> extended to all drivers! Doubling the points and
> the divider alone does not make any difference.
> There's no difference whether you divide 15 by 6
> or 30 by 12. It only starts to make a difference
> from P4 onwards and because all drivers were given
> points and not only the first twelve. That is what
> primarily brought the drivers and teams closer
> together, not the higher divider.
GPGSL - Christel VXR team Boss S6-S8, S12 Onwards
-------------------------------------------------------
> EricMoinet schrieb:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > JohnMaverick écrivait:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > That was my mistake. There was a lot to
> rewrite
> > > for this season and I forgot about that, to
> be
> > > honest. However, Stu is right. Since the
> points
> > > were doubled, we also doubled the divider to
> 12.
> > I
> > > admittedly forgot that myself (and since the
> > excel
> > > file does this automatically I wasn't made
> > aware
> > > of it after the problem at the start of the
> > season
> > > got fixed).
> >
> >
> > Hence why all your demonstrations proved the
> gap
> > was closer, isn't it ?
> > So, you've been arguing all this time to prove
> I
> > was wrong with my proposal while you were doing
> it
> > with a higher rate ??
> > Fair enough me think.
>
>
> That is one side of the medal. But there is one
> point you forget. Not only the divider was
> doubled, but the points were, too, and they were
> extended to all drivers! Doubling the points and
> the divider alone does not make any difference.
> There's no difference whether you divide 15 by 6
> or 30 by 12. It only starts to make a difference
> from P4 onwards and because all drivers were given
> points and not only the first twelve. That is what
> primarily brought the drivers and teams closer
> together, not the higher divider.
GPGSL - Christel VXR team Boss S6-S8, S12 Onwards
EricMoinet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, a higher divider could close the gap a little
> bit more IMO.
Eric, as I have already explained, because the lower teams score more perf points than they used to, a higher divider would impact them more than the higher ones. As you have already said, no-one is complaining about this, so I really don't see this as an issue and can't understand why we are spending so much time discussing it.
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
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, a higher divider could close the gap a little
> bit more IMO.
Eric, as I have already explained, because the lower teams score more perf points than they used to, a higher divider would impact them more than the higher ones. As you have already said, no-one is complaining about this, so I really don't see this as an issue and can't understand why we are spending so much time discussing it.
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
Oh no, he hasn't wasted any time. Your helmet will appear in the final S8 mod.
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
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
Stoopid écrivait:
-------------------------------------------------------
> EricMoinet Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So, a higher divider could close the gap a
> little
> > bit more IMO.
>
>
> Eric, as I have already explained, because the
> lower teams score more perf points than they used
> to, a higher divider would impact them more than
> the higher ones. As you have already said, no-one
> is complaining about this, so I really don't see
> this as an issue and can't understand why we are
> spending so much time discussing it.
Because it became funny to see how strong you were defending your privileges with wrong arguments, even after I've said to throw it away.
-------------------------------------------------------
> EricMoinet Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So, a higher divider could close the gap a
> little
> > bit more IMO.
>
>
> Eric, as I have already explained, because the
> lower teams score more perf points than they used
> to, a higher divider would impact them more than
> the higher ones. As you have already said, no-one
> is complaining about this, so I really don't see
> this as an issue and can't understand why we are
> spending so much time discussing it.
Because it became funny to see how strong you were defending your privileges with wrong arguments, even after I've said to throw it away.
EricMoinet schrieb:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stoopid écrivait:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > EricMoinet Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > So, a higher divider could close the gap a
> > little
> > > bit more IMO.
> >
> >
> > Eric, as I have already explained, because the
> > lower teams score more perf points than they
> used
> > to, a higher divider would impact them more
> than
> > the higher ones. As you have already said,
> no-one
> > is complaining about this, so I really don't
> see
> > this as an issue and can't understand why we
> are
> > spending so much time discussing it.
>
> Because it became funny to see how strong you were
> defending your privileges with wrong arguments,
> even after I've said to throw it away.
First of all, it was mostly me defending the current status and not Stu. Secondly, we're not defending any privileges! In fact, all the time we tried to make clear why the current scenario is working out better for smaller teams and hence the opposite of a privilege to AMR, for example! And thirdly my arguments weren't wrong, and Stu's were especially not! For a last time, the teams came closer together because everybody is gaining points from races now. The fact that double as much of points are given is equalized by the doubled divider, so that this fact alone is the same as last season, with half the points and half the divider.
And finally, after Maikel approved your idea, Stu showed with another practical proof why your opinion was wrong and then you jumped on the boat again.
So, after this was clarified, I think we can end this discussion and concentrate on the important things. No. 7 is open for voting and if enough people think that this should be changed then it will be changed and we'll see what happens.
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stoopid écrivait:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > EricMoinet Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > So, a higher divider could close the gap a
> > little
> > > bit more IMO.
> >
> >
> > Eric, as I have already explained, because the
> > lower teams score more perf points than they
> used
> > to, a higher divider would impact them more
> than
> > the higher ones. As you have already said,
> no-one
> > is complaining about this, so I really don't
> see
> > this as an issue and can't understand why we
> are
> > spending so much time discussing it.
>
> Because it became funny to see how strong you were
> defending your privileges with wrong arguments,
> even after I've said to throw it away.
First of all, it was mostly me defending the current status and not Stu. Secondly, we're not defending any privileges! In fact, all the time we tried to make clear why the current scenario is working out better for smaller teams and hence the opposite of a privilege to AMR, for example! And thirdly my arguments weren't wrong, and Stu's were especially not! For a last time, the teams came closer together because everybody is gaining points from races now. The fact that double as much of points are given is equalized by the doubled divider, so that this fact alone is the same as last season, with half the points and half the divider.
And finally, after Maikel approved your idea, Stu showed with another practical proof why your opinion was wrong and then you jumped on the boat again.
So, after this was clarified, I think we can end this discussion and concentrate on the important things. No. 7 is open for voting and if enough people think that this should be changed then it will be changed and we'll see what happens.
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
Thanks, that's just what I wanted
Rebumped for discussion - CARSHAPES
Guys - what are the confirmed rules on carshapes for next year?
I am a very big fan of Maikels work on the GPGSL carshape, but I am absolutely gagging for some diversity on the grid after so long.
Would it be beyond the realms to request a vote/discussion on extending the variety of shapes at all? Be it a variation on the current GPGSL shapes, or allowing other pre-released F1 shapes?
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
Guys - what are the confirmed rules on carshapes for next year?
I am a very big fan of Maikels work on the GPGSL carshape, but I am absolutely gagging for some diversity on the grid after so long.
Would it be beyond the realms to request a vote/discussion on extending the variety of shapes at all? Be it a variation on the current GPGSL shapes, or allowing other pre-released F1 shapes?
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.