GPGSL Rules and Regulations Discussion Thread
Posted by GPGSL
Considering the calls for a discussion thread like this, it would be in the best interests for the GPGSL for such a thread to exist - especially considering recent events.
I feel it is not necessary to have a complete idea for discussion, though if anyone has such suggestions, they will be just as welcome here.
However, considering any ideas and rules discussed here will be brought into action for Season 8 at the earliest, it is not impossible to consider taking a small concept and shaping a ruling around that concept.
Here are a couple of concepts that could get us started in these discussions:
These are merely potential starting points, remember - so if a concept proves unpopular, we just won't discuss it. Simple as that.
Thus, let the discussions begin!
Dean - GPGSLRS
I feel it is not necessary to have a complete idea for discussion, though if anyone has such suggestions, they will be just as welcome here.
However, considering any ideas and rules discussed here will be brought into action for Season 8 at the earliest, it is not impossible to consider taking a small concept and shaping a ruling around that concept.
Here are a couple of concepts that could get us started in these discussions:
- [*] Budgets
[*] Feeder Series
[*] Reducing the gap between top and bottom of the table
[*] Promotion/Relegation
[*] Driver loans
These are merely potential starting points, remember - so if a concept proves unpopular, we just won't discuss it. Simple as that.
Thus, let the discussions begin!
Dean - GPGSLRS
[*] Budgets - no changes
[*] Feeder Series - no changes
[*] Reducing the gap between top and bottom of the table - no changes
[*] Promotion/Relegation: create GPGSL2, but without promotion / relegation. This championship can be used to determine team who will enter on GPGSL when some team will go out!!
[*] Driver loans - no changes
One Racing driver and team manager
GPGSL-3: champion in 2007/2013/2014!
GPGSL-4: testdrivers champion in Season 11!
[*] Feeder Series - no changes
[*] Reducing the gap between top and bottom of the table - no changes
[*] Promotion/Relegation: create GPGSL2, but without promotion / relegation. This championship can be used to determine team who will enter on GPGSL when some team will go out!!
[*] Driver loans - no changes
One Racing driver and team manager
GPGSL-3: champion in 2007/2013/2014!
GPGSL-4: testdrivers champion in Season 11!
Well, as I was the person for screamed the loudest for this thread, I guess it's only normal that I am the first to use it 
Before I give my own ideas, I'd like to give my opinion to Dean's ideas:
Budgets: Generally a nice idea. However, this forum has already the F1-Manager and the GP2-Manager. In my opinion we should try to avoid to get too similar to them and a budget, as attractive as it might be for this series, would be a first big step into the direction of these series. This is the only reason, why I personally vote for a clear 'No'. Or, at least if we want to think about this, it would have to be implemented for the GPGSL, too, but again, I fear that this will become too much a manager then like the ones we already have in this forum.
Feeder Series: Absolutely, YES! This is the point, in my opinion, where a GPGSL-2 can really work. I have a rough vision of an independent GPGSL-2 series that replaces the GPGSL test series. But to make my point clear: I would prefer not to have these teams bound to a GPGSL team, but to be independent. Drivers that don't get a contract at a GPGSL team can drive at a GPGSL-2 team and build their perfs there. This works absolutely similar to the current test drives. When a race seat becomes vacant during the season, the GPGSL team can negotiate with GPGSL-2 drivers and the GPGSL-2 team has to let the driver go in such a case. That means, having strong drivers as a GPGSL-2 team offers you good chances for the series and to become a strong team, but you also have to fear that you lose your driver in the middle of the season.
The problem that I see here, is how to fill the gaps in the GPGSL-2 series. We don't have enough drivers yet to fill two full series. I have already several possibilities in mind, but before I tell them, I would like to hear your ideas, as all my ideas mean a lot of effort for the involved people.
Promotion/Relegation: Definitely a clear 'NO'. I agree with Chris that a relegation is unfair for the people who waited very long to get on the list. And even more drastic is the disposal in this. We all know that this series is mostly based on luck and time since you play. The longer, the better and the rest is luck. You can't really control this. And for this I think that a relegation will always make people feel bad and bring problems. --> When a slot in the GPGSL grid gets free, the first GPGSL-2 on the GPGSL waiting list gets the slot. Simple and fair.
Driver loans: See my claims at the Feeder Series point.
Reducing gap: Seriously, I don't see a real problem here. It's normal in motorsports that a few teams are rather at the top all the time, and others are rather at the bottom. The only solutions I see here are:
- Manually reduce the gap even more at the start of the season so that both cars and drivers are even more leveled
and/or
- give less points to reduce the speed of the perf increase.
The first point doesn't value good efforts and honestly, with the formula that Stu uses now to calculate the next season perfs, they are already very much leveled. Consequently I see more potential in the second idea, as it is obvious that the gap increases more the later the season is (see AMR in S6 as an example).
To conclude this:
I see potential in a possible GPGSL-2 series in S8. With the reduced length and accelerated qualifyings, it shouldn't be that much more effort than the test series, but nevertheless participants of the series will have to involve themselves with a bit of their time. In return, they will get a bit of screen time and much more attention and roleplay possibility than when they're simply on the waiting list.
I think, too, however, that this series should be rather independent and not on a partnership model with the GPGSL teams. And there shouldn't be a relegation system. ((And before people blame me now for this as I'm still at the top of the waiting list: I won't take a grid slot that soon. So, even if I go down at the end of the list, I still think the same about this))
/add: Great, now Rod stole my first post
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2011 11:19PM by JohnMaverick.
Before I give my own ideas, I'd like to give my opinion to Dean's ideas:
Budgets: Generally a nice idea. However, this forum has already the F1-Manager and the GP2-Manager. In my opinion we should try to avoid to get too similar to them and a budget, as attractive as it might be for this series, would be a first big step into the direction of these series. This is the only reason, why I personally vote for a clear 'No'. Or, at least if we want to think about this, it would have to be implemented for the GPGSL, too, but again, I fear that this will become too much a manager then like the ones we already have in this forum.
Feeder Series: Absolutely, YES! This is the point, in my opinion, where a GPGSL-2 can really work. I have a rough vision of an independent GPGSL-2 series that replaces the GPGSL test series. But to make my point clear: I would prefer not to have these teams bound to a GPGSL team, but to be independent. Drivers that don't get a contract at a GPGSL team can drive at a GPGSL-2 team and build their perfs there. This works absolutely similar to the current test drives. When a race seat becomes vacant during the season, the GPGSL team can negotiate with GPGSL-2 drivers and the GPGSL-2 team has to let the driver go in such a case. That means, having strong drivers as a GPGSL-2 team offers you good chances for the series and to become a strong team, but you also have to fear that you lose your driver in the middle of the season.
The problem that I see here, is how to fill the gaps in the GPGSL-2 series. We don't have enough drivers yet to fill two full series. I have already several possibilities in mind, but before I tell them, I would like to hear your ideas, as all my ideas mean a lot of effort for the involved people.
Promotion/Relegation: Definitely a clear 'NO'. I agree with Chris that a relegation is unfair for the people who waited very long to get on the list. And even more drastic is the disposal in this. We all know that this series is mostly based on luck and time since you play. The longer, the better and the rest is luck. You can't really control this. And for this I think that a relegation will always make people feel bad and bring problems. --> When a slot in the GPGSL grid gets free, the first GPGSL-2 on the GPGSL waiting list gets the slot. Simple and fair.
Driver loans: See my claims at the Feeder Series point.
Reducing gap: Seriously, I don't see a real problem here. It's normal in motorsports that a few teams are rather at the top all the time, and others are rather at the bottom. The only solutions I see here are:
- Manually reduce the gap even more at the start of the season so that both cars and drivers are even more leveled
and/or
- give less points to reduce the speed of the perf increase.
The first point doesn't value good efforts and honestly, with the formula that Stu uses now to calculate the next season perfs, they are already very much leveled. Consequently I see more potential in the second idea, as it is obvious that the gap increases more the later the season is (see AMR in S6 as an example).
To conclude this:
I see potential in a possible GPGSL-2 series in S8. With the reduced length and accelerated qualifyings, it shouldn't be that much more effort than the test series, but nevertheless participants of the series will have to involve themselves with a bit of their time. In return, they will get a bit of screen time and much more attention and roleplay possibility than when they're simply on the waiting list.
I think, too, however, that this series should be rather independent and not on a partnership model with the GPGSL teams. And there shouldn't be a relegation system. ((And before people blame me now for this as I'm still at the top of the waiting list: I won't take a grid slot that soon. So, even if I go down at the end of the list, I still think the same about this))
/add: Great, now Rod stole my first post
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2011 11:19PM by JohnMaverick.
In reducing the gap between teams, maybe something can be done with the boost a team has. Keep the 'perfs' the same at start of the season. But change the amount of boost teams have to use.
Now every team get 24 boost. If you would make a difference in it, lower teams can equal out there perf disadvantage by taking right strategic decisions (which can also blow up in your face if you try to use too much at once, i.e. failure rate)
Let's say 12 to 32 boost.
Team 1: 12 BHP
Team 2: 14 BHP
Team 3: 16 BHP
Team 4: 18 BHP
Team 5: 20 BHP
Team 6: 22 BHP
Team 7: 24 BHP
Team 8: 26 BHP
Team 9: 28 BHP
Team 10: 30 BHP
Team 11: 32 BHP
Also I'm in favour of a second division, but keep the teams independent like John says, don't 'tie' them to a GPGSL team. And keep the current waiting list for the order when teams can enter the GPGSL main division.
If you are racing, keep on racing and get some points!
GPG Super League S11 | Driver #41 | Team-manager | Snake Motorsports Racing Group | Next Race: Emmeloord - Flevoland GP | Constructors: 10th | Best Race Finish: 1st
GPG Super League Season 9 Testers Champion*
Now every team get 24 boost. If you would make a difference in it, lower teams can equal out there perf disadvantage by taking right strategic decisions (which can also blow up in your face if you try to use too much at once, i.e. failure rate)
Let's say 12 to 32 boost.
Team 1: 12 BHP
Team 2: 14 BHP
Team 3: 16 BHP
Team 4: 18 BHP
Team 5: 20 BHP
Team 6: 22 BHP
Team 7: 24 BHP
Team 8: 26 BHP
Team 9: 28 BHP
Team 10: 30 BHP
Team 11: 32 BHP
Also I'm in favour of a second division, but keep the teams independent like John says, don't 'tie' them to a GPGSL team. And keep the current waiting list for the order when teams can enter the GPGSL main division.
GPG Super League S11 | Driver #41 | Team-manager | Snake Motorsports Racing Group | Next Race: Emmeloord - Flevoland GP | Constructors: 10th | Best Race Finish: 1st
GPG Super League Season 9 Testers Champion*
Just to clarify this:
The kind of Young drivers program is exactly what I intend with my idea of the independent GPGSL-2 teams. When a main series team offers a driver a contract, the GPGSL-2 team has to let him go.
And I don't see a reason why a GPGSL-2 team shouldn't partner with a main series team, but this shouldn't be a necessity. If a GPGSL-2 team doesn't want to partner but stay independent, then this should be respected. This is what I meant.
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
The kind of Young drivers program is exactly what I intend with my idea of the independent GPGSL-2 teams. When a main series team offers a driver a contract, the GPGSL-2 team has to let him go.
And I don't see a reason why a GPGSL-2 team shouldn't partner with a main series team, but this shouldn't be a necessity. If a GPGSL-2 team doesn't want to partner but stay independent, then this should be respected. This is what I meant.
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
I think the reducing gap discussion will be a contentious one because top team bosses, say TSS and AMR aren't going to want their advantage taken away (and rightly so) but team bosses at the bottom of the field will want a way of catching the top teams quicker. I for one, count myself as a team boss managing a team further down the grid (at the moment) and I don't want there to be any change to the system. I am looking forward to the challenge of trying to get Christel VXR up to the front of the grid and challenging the big boys.
But to throw another idea into the melting pot I would just like to suggest adding the idea of multi-year contracts to the mix. I know it hasn't worked in the past but I wonder if a type of loyalty bonus could be built into the perf. If a driver signs for a team for three seasons instead of one then there is a small bonus to team and driver perfs somehow. I don't know how this works (as perfs are a dark art to me) or that I have explained it very well but I think you get the general gist. This could also be worked into the 'young driver programmes' that people have been talking about in here as well.
GPGSL - Christel VXR team Boss S6-S8, S12 Onwards
But to throw another idea into the melting pot I would just like to suggest adding the idea of multi-year contracts to the mix. I know it hasn't worked in the past but I wonder if a type of loyalty bonus could be built into the perf. If a driver signs for a team for three seasons instead of one then there is a small bonus to team and driver perfs somehow. I don't know how this works (as perfs are a dark art to me) or that I have explained it very well but I think you get the general gist. This could also be worked into the 'young driver programmes' that people have been talking about in here as well.
GPGSL - Christel VXR team Boss S6-S8, S12 Onwards
Generally a good idea, Chris. But how do you handle cases where a driver signs for 3 years, gets this perf bonus and then leaves the series again after 2 years? I just see a big potential of misuse these.
But generally the idea of multi-year contracts is good. I mean, the current rules don't prohibit multi-year contracts. If a driver and a teamboss privately negotiate a multi-year contract, and can prove this by PM, they have a valid contract and safety for their planning of the next seasons.
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
But generally the idea of multi-year contracts is good. I mean, the current rules don't prohibit multi-year contracts. If a driver and a teamboss privately negotiate a multi-year contract, and can prove this by PM, they have a valid contract and safety for their planning of the next seasons.
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
LOL! I posted this in the main thread, low and behold,, this now exists, bahah! Heres what I wrote, anyway...
Okay, lets not forget what happened in history, with an extra series...
Things can get intense and problems arise when people cannot complete things when they first say they can.
Classic example, myself and the Le Mans coverage. I didn't plan my time in the real world so well, and as such, I was late in getting the race scripted and people were annoyed.
I don't doubt a second series would be immensely fun and well thought out - BUT - the effort needed and guarantee of it its momentum is the questionable factor.
The reason I feel the GPGSL has survived into its 7th season is because we have a solid 11 teams involved. We have fewer places, and people 'fight' to keep them. That makes the majority of us active, which is healthy for the league. People WANT to be here, instead of making up numbers with half interest. You have to wait ages to get in, so people work to stay with a foot in the door.
This is a huge positive with the GPGSL I think.
There are a handful of other active guys waiting for new teams and slots, but there are not enough for another entire series.
Because of this, I feel a second league would perhaps survive a season or two, and likely die down with interest. I can't name all those in waiting, but I don't see an active presence in the main GPGSL forum to judge that, only guess. Chances are, 10 people have shortlisted for a team, but not all of them regularly read or follow the series and post so much. Silent fans perhaps.
Would we want to grant another league and have these silent teams making up numbers? It'd lose interest with half an active grid...
I know we said we'd leave this talk to a separate forum - maybe we should have an open 'GPGSL Governing Body Rules' thread pinned? We can talk about disputes, regulations, activity appeals etc, so it doesn't clutter the main series talk.
I would like to see more tester 'feature races' introduced into the calendar.
We don't necessarily have to pre-plan them, it could be a case of when or where is most convenient and who can run such a race and prepare the perfs.
We could have a test race every other main race - or lesser yet, every third main race. You'd get about 7 Tester Races per GPGSL season then.
That would make a not so full on second championship, which is easier to handle. It'd also give an insight into how hard hey are to manage, and how active they remain.
On the basis of that being successful, I think you can draw more conclusions as to whether a fully fledge second series is viable.
Call it 'testing the waters' based on slightly enhancing the workload and features we currently have.
As Glen said, he is willing to run some races when he can. If a few of us can do this, we could certainly improve things for our testers.
Just thinking aloud
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
Okay, lets not forget what happened in history, with an extra series...
Things can get intense and problems arise when people cannot complete things when they first say they can.
Classic example, myself and the Le Mans coverage. I didn't plan my time in the real world so well, and as such, I was late in getting the race scripted and people were annoyed.
I don't doubt a second series would be immensely fun and well thought out - BUT - the effort needed and guarantee of it its momentum is the questionable factor.
The reason I feel the GPGSL has survived into its 7th season is because we have a solid 11 teams involved. We have fewer places, and people 'fight' to keep them. That makes the majority of us active, which is healthy for the league. People WANT to be here, instead of making up numbers with half interest. You have to wait ages to get in, so people work to stay with a foot in the door.
This is a huge positive with the GPGSL I think.
There are a handful of other active guys waiting for new teams and slots, but there are not enough for another entire series.
Because of this, I feel a second league would perhaps survive a season or two, and likely die down with interest. I can't name all those in waiting, but I don't see an active presence in the main GPGSL forum to judge that, only guess. Chances are, 10 people have shortlisted for a team, but not all of them regularly read or follow the series and post so much. Silent fans perhaps.
Would we want to grant another league and have these silent teams making up numbers? It'd lose interest with half an active grid...
I know we said we'd leave this talk to a separate forum - maybe we should have an open 'GPGSL Governing Body Rules' thread pinned? We can talk about disputes, regulations, activity appeals etc, so it doesn't clutter the main series talk.
I would like to see more tester 'feature races' introduced into the calendar.
We don't necessarily have to pre-plan them, it could be a case of when or where is most convenient and who can run such a race and prepare the perfs.
We could have a test race every other main race - or lesser yet, every third main race. You'd get about 7 Tester Races per GPGSL season then.
That would make a not so full on second championship, which is easier to handle. It'd also give an insight into how hard hey are to manage, and how active they remain.
On the basis of that being successful, I think you can draw more conclusions as to whether a fully fledge second series is viable.
Call it 'testing the waters' based on slightly enhancing the workload and features we currently have.
As Glen said, he is willing to run some races when he can. If a few of us can do this, we could certainly improve things for our testers.
Just thinking aloud
JohnMaverick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Generally a good idea, Chris. But how do you
> handle cases where a driver signs for 3 years,
> gets this perf bonus and then leaves the series
> again after 2 years? I just see a big potential of
> misuse these.
>
> But generally the idea of multi-year contracts is
> good. I mean, the current rules don't prohibit
> multi-year contracts. If a driver and a teamboss
> privately negotiate a multi-year contract, and can
> prove this by PM, they have a valid contract and
> safety for their planning of the next seasons.
A good question sir and t be honest I dont know I just imagined that there would be a small bonus to both team and driver so that it was mutually beneficial situation...but the detailed logistics of how that would actually work are still floating somewhere in the back of my mind god help them
GPGSL - Christel VXR team Boss S6-S8, S12 Onwards
-------------------------------------------------------
> Generally a good idea, Chris. But how do you
> handle cases where a driver signs for 3 years,
> gets this perf bonus and then leaves the series
> again after 2 years? I just see a big potential of
> misuse these.
>
> But generally the idea of multi-year contracts is
> good. I mean, the current rules don't prohibit
> multi-year contracts. If a driver and a teamboss
> privately negotiate a multi-year contract, and can
> prove this by PM, they have a valid contract and
> safety for their planning of the next seasons.
A good question sir and t be honest I dont know I just imagined that there would be a small bonus to both team and driver so that it was mutually beneficial situation...but the detailed logistics of how that would actually work are still floating somewhere in the back of my mind god help them
GPGSL - Christel VXR team Boss S6-S8, S12 Onwards
Driver bonuses for multi-year contracts? Dan Paddock would get +1000 for staying with his own team for so long! Unworkable in my opinion.
1. Budgets would just change the series completely and how would it work? Drivers, tyres and engines are given a monetary value? I can already hear the better drivers moaning they will be priced out the series, because teams can't afford them.
2. I won't even comment on the feeder series as that has already been shot down in flames.
3. I don't see how the gap between the top teams and the bottom teams can be reduced any further. 780 for the bottom team and 784 for the top, thats how its just worked out this season. Season 6 it was 780 - 783.
4. For promotion/relegation - read 2.
5. Why do we need rules for driver loans? We have never needed them before.
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
1. Budgets would just change the series completely and how would it work? Drivers, tyres and engines are given a monetary value? I can already hear the better drivers moaning they will be priced out the series, because teams can't afford them.
2. I won't even comment on the feeder series as that has already been shot down in flames.
3. I don't see how the gap between the top teams and the bottom teams can be reduced any further. 780 for the bottom team and 784 for the top, thats how its just worked out this season. Season 6 it was 780 - 783.
4. For promotion/relegation - read 2.
5. Why do we need rules for driver loans? We have never needed them before.
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
BAR#10 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Frankly, speaking as purely competitor I'd like to
> see team boost increased (say 72, yes 72, instead
> of 24 bhp per all teams)
> IMO, problem with current is that GP4 tends to
> bless one team or driver with dominance despite
> close perfs and hopefully this is the way to
> counter it and make it more strategical or as i
> once put it, have a higher chance in the lottery.
>
> also trackpack ready and released prior to the
> season as weather, so we know what we are
> allocating boost to.
72 bhp boost is just ridiculous! Matteo is already putting team boosts in nearly every race, with 72bhp he would just apply for around 4 bhp per race! How's that strategic?
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
-------------------------------------------------------
> Frankly, speaking as purely competitor I'd like to
> see team boost increased (say 72, yes 72, instead
> of 24 bhp per all teams)
> IMO, problem with current is that GP4 tends to
> bless one team or driver with dominance despite
> close perfs and hopefully this is the way to
> counter it and make it more strategical or as i
> once put it, have a higher chance in the lottery.
>
> also trackpack ready and released prior to the
> season as weather, so we know what we are
> allocating boost to.
72 bhp boost is just ridiculous! Matteo is already putting team boosts in nearly every race, with 72bhp he would just apply for around 4 bhp per race! How's that strategic?
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
I could tell you but then I'd reveal my strategy
GPGSL career;
Current team: Team ShadowSubaru, Previous teams: MPR, Minardi
starts:100 Wins: 12, Podiums: 34, Fastest Laps: 14, poles: 12 Points: 708
winner of Belgian GP (s1), Australian GP (s1), Canadian GP (S1), Brazilian GP(s4, s5), Hungarian GP(s3), Italian GP(s3), French GP (s5,s7), Monaco GP (s4) and USA GP
GPGSL career;
Current team: Team ShadowSubaru, Previous teams: MPR, Minardi
starts:100 Wins: 12, Podiums: 34, Fastest Laps: 14, poles: 12 Points: 708
winner of Belgian GP (s1), Australian GP (s1), Canadian GP (S1), Brazilian GP(s4, s5), Hungarian GP(s3), Italian GP(s3), French GP (s5,s7), Monaco GP (s4) and USA GP
Stoopid schrieb:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 2. I won't even comment on the feeder series as
> that has already been shot down in flames.
I don't think so. It was only a question when to start and how to run it. The feeder series itself hasn't been heavily attacked yet, at least not from the broad mass of participants.
> 3. I don't see how the gap between the top teams
> and the bottom teams can be reduced any further.
> 780 for the bottom team and 784 for the top, thats
> how its just worked out this season. Season 6 it
> was 780 - 783.
See my second idea: Reduce the amount of points, or at least the perf points you get. I agree with you that a reduce of the gaps in the starting perfs isn't really possible, however.
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
-------------------------------------------------------
> 2. I won't even comment on the feeder series as
> that has already been shot down in flames.
I don't think so. It was only a question when to start and how to run it. The feeder series itself hasn't been heavily attacked yet, at least not from the broad mass of participants.
> 3. I don't see how the gap between the top teams
> and the bottom teams can be reduced any further.
> 780 for the bottom team and 784 for the top, thats
> how its just worked out this season. Season 6 it
> was 780 - 783.
See my second idea: Reduce the amount of points, or at least the perf points you get. I agree with you that a reduce of the gaps in the starting perfs isn't really possible, however.
GPGSL : Team Owner of 'Maverick Track Performance' (MTP)
I also think teams who inherit another team should not be allowed to benefit from all the perf work of the team before it.
ie, is TSS quit, then a new team will get years of rising to the top.
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
ie, is TSS quit, then a new team will get years of rising to the top.
danm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I also think teams who inherit another team should
> not be allowed to benefit from all the perf work
> of the team before it.
>
> ie, is TSS quit, then a new team will get years of
> rising to the top.
Now THAT I agree with! Never in my opinion has a mre sensible word been spoken!
GPGSL - Christel VXR team Boss S6-S8, S12 Onwards
-------------------------------------------------------
> I also think teams who inherit another team should
> not be allowed to benefit from all the perf work
> of the team before it.
>
> ie, is TSS quit, then a new team will get years of
> rising to the top.
Now THAT I agree with! Never in my opinion has a mre sensible word been spoken!
GPGSL - Christel VXR team Boss S6-S8, S12 Onwards
Well what about half of the perf advantage of an existing team carries on with the new teamboss.
i.e (dont know if this are the teams or drivers perfs) if the starters perf for teams is 16020 and TSS earned 16120 to be theire new startersperf with the experience over the seasons this means a difference of 100 perf points. What if a new team takes over and we split the advantage. That would bring the starters perf of the team to 16070 for a new season.
Wow my english gets worse every single day...
danm Schreef:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I also think teams who inherit another team should
> not be allowed to benefit from all the perf work
> of the team before it.
>
> ie, is TSS quit, then a new team will get years of
> rising to the top.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If in doubt, Flat out."
i.e (dont know if this are the teams or drivers perfs) if the starters perf for teams is 16020 and TSS earned 16120 to be theire new startersperf with the experience over the seasons this means a difference of 100 perf points. What if a new team takes over and we split the advantage. That would bring the starters perf of the team to 16070 for a new season.
Wow my english gets worse every single day...
danm Schreef:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I also think teams who inherit another team should
> not be allowed to benefit from all the perf work
> of the team before it.
>
> ie, is TSS quit, then a new team will get years of
> rising to the top.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If in doubt, Flat out."
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.