TORA ISCC General Discussion

You let the drivers start with the pack but give them a 10 second penalty added to their completed race time

+1 Nick thats a much better rule.

lfcnicklfc wrote:You let the drivers start with the pack but give them a 10 second penalty added to their completed race time

Because then we'll get complaints about people not know the distance between themselves (time wise) and the person they are racing if they happen to be racing someone that gets the 10 second penalty! if you want to look at it as a penalty then yes it is a penalty and here's why, you didn't show up for qualifying and set no time, but you get to start right behind the pople in your class? what time have you lost for not qualifying? none! they're right there in front of you! it's like you didnt miss qualy at all! THIS IS NOT GEARED AT YOU CHAD!!!! Gary had posted In as well and missed both qualy and race, had he shown up for the race and this rule was put in, he would have been effected just the same if not worse!

This is a rule we've been using on most of our Endurance races since the N24 at the end of last year. It's a very good system of differentiating between people who have qualified and who haven't. With these races being relatively long you have ample opportunity to make up the time you lost in the the pit stop.

Going to the back of the field doesn't make much of a difference when you only have around 12 cars on track, and about 4-5 GT cars to pass before you are back onto the tail of the LMPC field. Starting in the lower lobby already adds time onto your finish, plus you may lose more when the lobbies are balanced up. As Louis said if you race for the entire 1 hour or so with the knowledge that you have 10 seconds to be added onto your time at the end then you won't have a clear undertsanding of you position.

It has, admittedly, became an issue because of the person you beat. I can quite easily see how much the rule can be viewed as favouritism and looks as though it is being changed to prevent people from winning, but it does make sense as a rule for any late comers who are able to start right behind the 3 other drivers who actually qualified. It is only something that can apply to endurance races with lower class numbers, but how would you feel if someone didn't make the TCC qualificatoin and started right behind you in A lobby and who were able to go on to win and score massive points?

There needs to be a penalty of some sort, and I think the "starting from the pits" idea is much more suited and more practical than us adding one lap onto your counter at the end.

Maybe the decision was ill timed and should have been discussed further or held back until ISCC America, but it is Louis' decision and if that is how he wants the penalty to work then that is how it will be.

im just bloody glad im working saturdays now or i wouldnt have pulled my car out due to this rule, this ONE rule.[u]

Withdrawing from the series.

Best of luck to everyone in their future races.

Whats up Mopar?

that's what i would like to know

Following Round 4 (Silverstone) of the TORA ISCC Championship the following incident/s are under investigation by the stewards;

1) Car #4 & #54 coming together at the exit to the pits approx 20 mins into race
2)
3)

I am going to pull out of the ISCC, so I can focus more on the TCC.

when did you race in the ISCC?

Duncan wrote:when did you race in the ISCC?

He turned up to the first one in January, but hasn't raced since I believe

Aston Martin AMR-One (ugliest LMP ever?) and the Mercedes AMG SLS GT3 are in the latest DLC! ISCC America is going to have some cool new cars in it!

lets hope the SLS GT3 can migrate well into ISCC-GT status. the Z4 GT3 if a tough one

i hope it does as the car is stunningly gorgeous

some testing will be coming up, me thinks

It would be hard to find an uglier LMP than the AMR-One, for which naming rights I am yet to recieve any payments.

Wonder if Marr & Millard racing would end up with the Rizla Blue SLS GT3 in ISCC...

i smell photoshop in the works before the next DLC comes out?

ADx Garage wrote:It would be hard to find an uglier LMP than the AMR-One

Let's be honest here

I said LMP not group c and HOW THE FLIP DARE YOU SIR!!!



I can find an uglier Group C car than that...

how dare you adrian! the Lola was beautiful! the ugliest Prototype ever was the Cannibal!

http://www.racingsportscars.com/photo/1995/Daytona-1995-02-05-051.jpg

I like the AMR-One

Louis wrote:how dare you adrian! the Lola was beautiful! the ugliest Prototype ever was the Cannibal!

http://www.racingsportscars.com/photo/1995/Daytona-1995-02-05-051.jpg

Oh! We have a winner I think!

And Garage HOW VERY FLIP DARE YOUUUUU!!!! The Lola was sexual...

So the AMR will be at 976 or 998?

we're working on it and will release our findings with in the week