TORA TEC Silverstone 12H: General Discussion

So if it was that good why was only 2 of them being ran then?

got to be something wrong with it if only 2 cars where running ??

TCC was the best of car balancing I have ever seen very equal.

Because that's what people chose to run.

Only 1 Huracan entered.

Flawed logic......

Foreu2env wrote:FYI - using the data from Silverstone qualifying, a 107% rule would not have excluded a single team.  Fastest GT quali time = 4:00.8...  107% of that would be roughly 4:17, but the slowest quali time for a GT team was only 4:09.. and thats based on TOP team 107%.. the number would have been even more inflated if you took the avg of the top 3 teams to establish 107%.. this means that a car running at 107% or more of top 3 avg would literally be moving too slow to be a burden unless they were actively trying to impede traffic.. in which case an SI should see them removed from the event.

Just layin out the numbers for the sake of clarity...

this is a good post.

Sub Zero Nova 2 wrote:So if it was that good why was only 2 of them being ran then?

got to be something wrong with it if only 2 cars where running ??

TCC was the best of car balancing I have ever seen very equal.

like Bellmond said only 1 Huracan and the rest were Vipers,Corvettes,Porsche's and i saw a Z4 wtf is your problem? seems your kicking up a fuss for no reason, either sit down and listen or Gtfo seriously.

Ugh if you didn't race in the class I don't understand how you could have an opinion on how the cars were built.

F4H ForceOne wrote:Ugh if you didn't race in the class I don't understand how you could have an opinion on how the cars were built.

that to Nova or myself, :/ lol confused here.

HCR Solar wrote:

F4H ForceOne wrote:Ugh if you didn't race in the class I don't understand how you could have an opinion on how the cars were built.

that to Nova or myself, :/ lol confused here.

Nova lol.

F4H ForceOne wrote:

HCR Solar wrote:

F4H ForceOne wrote:Ugh if you didn't race in the class I don't understand how you could have an opinion on how the cars were built.

that to Nova or myself, :/ lol confused here.

Nova lol.

okay sweet, was gonna say i was in the Huracan haha

don't you love all the friendly banter that comes around after these races...

ErebusV8 wrote:don't you love all the friendly banter that comes around after these races...

well if you ignore certain people, a lot of good ideas have been suggested.

Sub Zero Nova 2 wrote:So if it was that good why was only 2 of them being ran then?

got to be something wrong with it if only 2 cars where running ??

TCC was the best of car balancing I have ever seen very equal.

I got a 2:00.4 in the dry with a Z4, 2:09.4 in the rain - both great times. The car hurt on the straights as usual, but it had pace. For the Ring, we might see a power boost if we can work the buckets around to get the 15% build back.

I have a bit of free time tomorrow so I'll get some preliminary builds rolling for GT.

HCR generaltso wrote:

ErebusV8 wrote:don't you love all the friendly banter that comes around after these races...

well if you ignore certain people, a lot of good ideas have been suggested.

Ignore the people who dont agree with the stopping people race idea?

Just take a look on this years Nürburgring 24H - there was nearly over 40 GT(3) cars in the field but you will find Porsche Caymans, BMW M235i, Lexus RCF, Audi TT, Seat Leon, a Opel Astra and also the mighty Subaru WRX in the top 40 result!

This is just a normal result caused by incidents, good or bad driving and consistency of the teams.

i dont have the feeling that so much in silverstone went wrong. overlapping incidents are a not a nice, but a normal part of a race and can happen anyplace, anywhere, anytime and for everyone!

I really dont understand why we should influence the results artificially. Thats what every real racing series today do and thats why so many fans are unhappy about it.

And why should we change rules like that just for one last f**** race?

Everyone, top driver or rookie, GT or TCC driver just should just want to make it better at the ring.

Anything else we should decide on the track and not with a bunch of rules.

There are faster and slower drivers, but if we begin to sort drivers on paper after that we will loose the basic reason why we race. Thats a 24H race where anything can happen in the green hell and it will not be the first time, that not the fastest team takes the highest place on the podium

One thing to mention, these are suggestions, not what is actually gonna happen,

secondly, to the people saying "just run 2 lobbies", simple answer to that is no, unless we get 32+ teams then I'm not organizing another 24H 2 lobby race, not when we only managed 1 lobby for a 12H race which has smaller teams.

Secondly to reduce the thing that annoys me most, I most likely won't be accepting entries for this one to anyone that had a DNS as it's unfair for those people to waste a spot on the grid that could have been enjoyed by someone else.

107% rule is a good idea if it helps put the people in the right bucket to suit their skill, no I don't mind people being slow, but when they're interfering with another race and battling with a slower class it's just plain wrong.

If you're doing that you shouldn't really be on track, either drive the car to it's potential, or let the other guy continue his race, a slow GT car allowing a TCC car pass will make no difference to your race, but holding them off just aggravates everyone and therefore we have this conversation.

If it can work fairly I'll consider using it, if not I won't, simple as

How does everyone feel about boosting GTs to the 850-860 PI range? That way we don't need as many buckets for grip handicaps, cars like the Z4 won't be alienated on the straights, and it decreases the likelihood of someone in GT being slower than a TCC car.

CAR Harmonic wrote:How does everyone feel about boosting GTs to the 850-860 PI range? That way we don't need as many buckets for grip handicaps, cars like the Z4 won't be alienated on the straights, and it decreases the likelihood of someone in GT being slower than a TCC car.

I'm a fan of this idea but I'd be concerned about guys in the cars who haven't got a diggery doo how to drive something that fast. I'm also a fan of decreasing the number of GT cars available as it's high maintenance and a lot of work to try balance them all. Just shave off 3-4 cars and put more time into a smaller list of cars. Just my two cents.

F4H Hakkinen wrote:

CAR Harmonic wrote:How does everyone feel about boosting GTs to the 850-860 PI range? That way we don't need as many buckets for grip handicaps, cars like the Z4 won't be alienated on the straights, and it decreases the likelihood of someone in GT being slower than a TCC car.

I'm a fan of this idea but I'd be concerned about guys in the cars who haven't got a diggery doo how to drive something that fast. I'm also a fan of decreasing the number of GT cars available as it's high maintenance and a lot of work to try balance them all. Just shave off 3-4 cars and put more time into a smaller list of cars. Just my two cents.

The balancing was fine, Harmonic did a lot of work on them himself. Then again, this is a longggg tough track but people have already started some solid work.

I'm open to the idea, if it makes cars better, negating handicaps on high PI cars like the Ford, Nissan and Aston, it's something we can have a look at.

But yes, hopefully the issue of hazardous drivers never happens again but we ought to take some measures to further negate it.

HCR Motorhead wrote:

F4H Hakkinen wrote:

CAR Harmonic wrote:How does everyone feel about boosting GTs to the 850-860 PI range? That way we don't need as many buckets for grip handicaps, cars like the Z4 won't be alienated on the straights, and it decreases the likelihood of someone in GT being slower than a TCC car.

I'm a fan of this idea but I'd be concerned about guys in the cars who haven't got a diggery doo how to drive something that fast. I'm also a fan of decreasing the number of GT cars available as it's high maintenance and a lot of work to try balance them all. Just shave off 3-4 cars and put more time into a smaller list of cars. Just my two cents.

The balancing was fine, Harmonic did a lot of work on them himself. Then again, this is a longggg tough track but people have already started some solid work.

I'm open to the idea, if it makes cars better, negating handicaps on high PI cars like the Ford, Nissan and Aston, it's something we can have a look at.

But yes, hopefully the issue of hazardous drivers never happens again but we ought to take some measures to further negate it.

To be fair, regardless of pace, we really do have a good bunch here but it's the newbies that arrive and don't really get it. We can quote the rules all we like but they don't read, won't read them and that's just how it goes. Putting in an SI is all well and good but the damage is done and we probably won't see them again anyway. The guy who caused havoc for us was new, hasn't said anything and we won't be seeing him again I am sure. Again, how do we ensure continuity across the field for etiquette? I'm open to the discussion.

I appreciate David's efforts. I don't really know what the back end looks like. We've already got some testing data done but really, it's worthless without knowing where the builds are going. I'd love to see them go public ASAP so we can actually help you guys out.

I'll take a look at the previous events and observe trends in what cars have been chosen. I'll use what I find from that to cut the appropriate cars - while keeping the modern ones, of course.

CAR Harmonic wrote:I'll take a look at the previous events and observe trends in what cars have been chosen. I'll use what I find from that to cut the appropriate cars - while keeping the modern ones, of course.

Wish I could help you out some more. Let me look at our documents for the team and see if I can find any data from our own testing for GT cars. I'll PM you what I find.

What's your email? I found all our data from the VEC N12

I PM'd you. Based on the cars we include and how the balancing goes from that, I'll figure out whether it's better to raise the PI to 860ish or not. They're not too much more difficult to drive, and it'll make things a bit less complicated depending on the cars that make the cut.

F4H Hakkinen wrote:Again, how do we ensure continuity across the field for etiquette? I'm open to the discussion.

mandatory practice sessions

ErebusV8 wrote:

Team Name: Ax4x Cancer Council
Car Choice: BMW Z4
Class (LMP1 or TORA GT): GT
Team Number: 52
Driver 1 TORA Number: 52
Driver 1 Gamertag: CallMehDarkside
Driver 2 TORA Number: 517
Driver 2 Gamertag: AcheyBreakey


All drivers have read and understood the rules / regulations thread: Yes

Was AcheyBreakey not banned for TORA over an incident TORA want to keep quiet?

I like the idea of raising the GT PI. that should make everyone happy