2011 LMS Car List!

sorry Magictap, i think im still messing my time entries up. but that time for the Epserante at Road Atlanta was the default tune WITH the 5% grip handicap on front & back

Yeah, remember Handicaps are key.

even with the handicaps though, the Esperante is over a second faster than my Ford GT mk7 with the tune im working on for Nurburg, and yet the Panoz was ran with the default tune....

Yeah its a rather good car, i think the handicap needs upped on it a bit.

Either the handicap stays or the car goes. There aren't enough handicap groups to have another different setting.

Please respect the fact that we have spent weeks and weeks balance testing before you come in within 2 days and poo poo the list. Some cars will naturally suit certain styles of driving better than others.

Aero, I don't think they are trying to poo poo your list, they are merely letting you know what their testing has shown. They are trying to help, so don't go poo pooing on their attempts either. It is not like they are demanding you change it or they quit. Just a simple suggestion from a compettitor trying to help. I feel this happens a lot. It makes the compettitors feel like they don't have the right to even try and help out. I hate that feeling personally because in the end we are all just trying to have the same thing, a fantastic time playing our games together.

DMR SWITCH wrote:even with the handicaps though, the Esperante is over a second faster than my Ford GT mk7 with the tune im working on for Nurburg, and yet the Panoz was ran with the default tune....

The ford restricted is horrendously slow I find

WWR Aero wrote:Either the handicap stays or the car goes. There aren't enough handicap groups to have another different setting.

Please respect the fact that we have spent weeks and weeks balance testing before you come in within 2 days and poo poo the list. Some cars will naturally suit certain styles of driving better than others.

This statement is very much so true! just look at me and the R10 and R15, R10 not my driving style R15 spot on and a dream to drive!

it right switch, but noone has come back to me yet about editing my post so I can make it auto sort ;O( I have to manually do it atm!

AAR Gashi wrote:Aero, I don't think they are trying to poo poo your list, they are merely letting you know what their testing has shown. They are trying to help, so don't go poo pooing on their attempts either. It is not like they are demanding you change it or they quit. Just a simple suggestion from a compettitor trying to help. I feel this happens a lot. It makes the compettitors feel like they don't have the right to even try and help out. I hate that feeling personally because in the end we are all just trying to have the same thing, a fantastic time playing our games together.

Apologies if once again, the moment something comes out of my "mouth" you take offense to it. I do take the constructive criticism of the work I do on board and under consideration, and welcome it (when it is constructive). My comment was intended to be pre-emptive (hence "before you come in...") to stave off the inevitable wave of "Car A is too fast", "Car B needs a PI boost" etc etc comment bandwagon which unfortunately some people tend to feel necessary to jump on whenever a car list is published. Many of these thoughts are likely to be things which we have already considered and have either made a reasoned decision about, (for instance certain cars are not in the list because they were tested and deemed "too fast and too difficult to balance without gimping the car, thus making it un-choosable anyway", or "too slow, and we don't want to start artificially boosting cars, often making them over-powered for the chassis") or they are on a "watch" list.

The Panoz was one such car which is on the "watch list". We know it was way faster than everything un-handicapped, and still very fast "fully handicapped" if you could drive around the grip penalty. Therefore we intended to keep an eye on it and see whether it was likely to be un-balanced and dominate, or fit in nicely. This would largely depend on who was driving it. I would hope that the faster drivers would look for "dark horse" car choices, or try to pick something that was a challenge, rather than plumping for the easy domination route, but if that doesn't seem to be the case; as stated before, the list was released early enough for people to test and make an informed car choice, but we reserve the right to increase the handicap of any car which seems to have a significant advantage, or remove it from the list if it cannot be balanced with the rest of the field.

Magictap wrote:it right switch, but noone has come back to me yet about editing my post so I can make it auto sort ;O( I have to manually do it atm!

I can edit your post for you, please PM me with the details of what you'd like changed.

I just sent Magic a PM

Magictap wrote:it right switch, but noone has come back to me yet about editing my post so I can make it auto sort ;O( I have to manually do it atm!

Updated

Duncan wrote:Hey Matt,

Thats fantastic and new members who join TORA will be able to see not only Staff Times but every 1 elses which will help them make the right car choice, also as I said about the Nur 24 car list, We also we reserve the right to alter cars pi and handicap and so community times are much appericated.

Thanks all

"We also we reserve the right to alter cars pi and handicap and so community times are much appericated"

Cheers for updating.

If I may add my two pennies worth into this discussion. In another world at another time I tested A LOT for a GT1 series. Myself and a few others had a fair number of cars at different tracks all within tens of each other.

But alas, when it came to racing these Uber balanced cars, it proved a very different story.

My point is lap times alone do not form the basis for a balanced car list, you have to race these cars across different tracks to really find out how close the racing will be.

Cheers ;O)

Aero, wouldn't have been easier and less destructive to then say, "thanks for the input, we know about the panoz and are watching it closely to see what others can do with it, we do reserve the right to change the cars prior to the start of racing" instead of "Please respect the fact that we have spent weeks and weeks balance testing before you come in within 2 days and poo poo the list."

Lol, and I only take offense to the things you type because they offend me. Hehehe.

Close racing does not mean balanced cars. Some drivers are just faster than others. If you start balancing the cars to force close racing, you're essentially balancing the drivers, not the cars.

The reason we compared our times against ourselves, was essentially to remove the "driver" as a variable in the testing process.

We did the same Aero, which was my point I think you didn't quite get.

The cars were balanced perfectly. Not the drivers, or the cars to specific drivers, and this perfect balancing didn't result in great close racing. So my point was just balancing the cars in itself isn't enough, so please everyone give the current cars and their PI's etc a chance in racing environments ;O)

Was all. ;o)

As for : "Close racing does not mean balanced cars." It sure goes a long way to ensuring close racing and a fair level playing field. Which is surely what car balancing is all about. Stock build and tuning series see's close racing even with different driver skill sets. So there must be something in equal cars.

Don't get me wrong, I definitely understand your point, as we were discussing what you had said about the OMGT1 testing during our sessions, I just wonder whether it is right to try to create "close racing" between drivers of different skill levels.

Using an F1 as an example, it would be like making Alonso as slow as a mid-field racer, and boosting Chandhok up to mid-field speed, hence making everyone "average".

What we were aiming for, was a level playing field of cars, then make of it what you can as a driver. This would obviously see the faster drivers pulling clear of the tail-enders, but we are hoping to counteract that (in a way) by offering tuning, racecraft discussions and even a mentoring scheme for 2011, to help anyone who wants it come one pace with the front runners.

Guys dont forget there will be a perfomance handicap for the winners for all of TORA events next year throughout the year so yes this will act as our sucsess balast, but the community is doing a great job and thanks Mat for putting youur base tunes up on the storefront, if any 1 wants to help with promo work for 2011 please contact Community or Staff team as well.

We need your help with TORA promotion.

i totally agree with you that levelling / balancing drivers should not be done. If someone is fast. learn to catch them or give them their dues.

Driving fast is one thing, racing fast is another ;O)

Performance ballast or something similar like BTCC uses is acceptable in the grand scheme of a championship for interest and excitement I feel as a side point.

ps. that

"Driving fast is one thing, racing fast is another"

was a dig at myself!! lol Must learn to be consistent!!!

LOL, I know dude I must remember to watch out for tyre walls lol

We haven't tested how serverely this would affect performance yet, but we were thinking along the lines of this for success ballast (for all 2011 series):

Class winners will receive a -5% power handicap per consecutive race win.
Therefore Race 1 at Meeting 1 in all series is unhandicapped (as in no success ballast - car list handicaps still apply)
Race 2 sees each class winner of Race 1 with a -5% power handicap
Race 3 sees each class winner of Race 2 with a -5% power handicap
and so on.

If the winner of Race 1 in this example also wins Race 2, the handicap is cumulative, so in Race 3 they will have a -10% power handicap.
Theoretically you could end up with a -95% power handicap, but that's just not going to happen. If you can still win with -10% power or more, then you deserve to win - you'd have to be a demon!!!

"Ballast" will be removed for the following round if you place lower than 1st in class (possibly removed incrimentally - this needs testing).

As you can see this is PER RACE, so for LMS that is per meeting, but for something like TCC, there could be 3 different drivers handicapped throughout a meeting.