MSA TORA GT World Championship - Results & Standings

Hainsey did 1 extra lap at a slower pace because of his tyre wear.
Chaddy did 1 less lap and is being credited with an extra lap at his qualifying pace despite having tyres in a similar condition to Hainesy.

To think that Chaddy could have got an extra lap in at his qualifying speed on worn tyres is unrealistic. The drop off once you reach 70% is huge and is a massive contributing factor as to why Hainesy's last lap was significantly slower than his qualifying time.

If Hainesy could have done a 1:59 on his last lap he would have finished ahead of Chaddy. Likewise, if Chaddy had somehow gone a couple of seconds quicker with a 2:02 on similarly worn tyres in cars with very evenly matched performance then Hainsey would have been ahead.

Crediting someone with a qualifying lap on worn tyres is basically eliminating the 4 second lobby offset. The offset would either need to be larger or the credited lap be more appropriate to a lap at the pace of the car given its situation.

So I'll ask again; how do you "scientifically" quantify what an "end of race" lap time should be?

There's no way to " scientifically quantify" anything. But just so everyone knows, the Aston was capable of mid 58s with 60 % tyre wear and probably not too far off that at 70%. I know this for a fact as I done it in test runs.

CQR Aero wrote:So I'll ask again; how do you "scientifically" quantify what an "end of race" lap time should be?

Well we know when the tyres fall off the cliff you lose 5 seconds on the lap they do, which is over 70% so there's your 'scientific' answer

And more to the point I want the reasoning for why you have just given a quali lap out totally ignoring the tyre degradation, essentially you have just said, well he could have done his quali lap (WHICH HE COULD NOT ON 72% tyres or 80% as he was quoted to have said at the end) so let's just say he did rather than actually doing it so he makes up two places...

And this is totally nothing against Chaddy, If I were in his place I would have just held my hands up and said no there is no way I could do that quali time on how worn out my tyres were and give an estimation of the time he would have done.

lap times do indeed drop off after 70% wear , exactly how much time you lose depends on the driver and how he handles his car.

IRT Trash wrote:lap times do indeed drop off after 70% wear , exactly how much time you lose depends on the driver and how he handles his car.

We was discussing this in the lobby last night, and with all the testing that we have done and we compared it with MXR Claim's results and he gave the same views from his previous results that you do lose 5 seconds on the lap your tyres fall off the cliff at the very least, i'm actually surprised more people don't know as you would think it would be beneficial to actually get the correct results down...

BG Wumba wrote:

IRT Trash wrote:lap times do indeed drop off after 70% wear , exactly how much time you lose depends on the driver and how he handles his car.

We was discussing this in the lobby last night, and with all the testing that we have done and we compared it with MXR Claim's results and he gave the same views from his previous results that you do lose 5 seconds on the lap your tyres fall off the cliff at the very least, i'm actually surprised more people don't know as you would think it would be beneficial to actually get the correct results down...

All of whom are in the Z4....

CQR D4N13L wrote:There's no way to " scientifically quantify" anything. But just so everyone knows, the Aston was capable of mid 58s with 60 % tyre wear and probably not too far off that at 70%. I know this for a fact as I done it in test runs.

For me the "cliff" in the Aston came at 80% wear.

Well the way I look at things yes it's an endurance race and you trying to run as one race
Qualifying states you have different driver levels which to my mind in A lobby would and should accumulate more points than say someone in any other lobby regardless of what distance you have travelled or if you stick to distance travelled then extra points should be awarded to your lobby status cause you could miss qualifying finish in a lower lobby and still Win the race which to me would not sound fair to those who try there hardest to get a good qualifying lobby
So what I'm trying to say is the higher you qualify the more points you get and no one loses out cause if you choke in qualifying like me lol then that's your own fault

CQR Aero wrote:

BG Wumba wrote:

IRT Trash wrote:lap times do indeed drop off after 70% wear , exactly how much time you lose depends on the driver and how he handles his car.

We was discussing this in the lobby last night, and with all the testing that we have done and we compared it with MXR Claim's results and he gave the same views from his previous results that you do lose 5 seconds on the lap your tyres fall off the cliff at the very least, i'm actually surprised more people don't know as you would think it would be beneficial to actually get the correct results down...

All of whom are in the Z4....

CQR D4N13L wrote:There's no way to " scientifically quantify" anything. But just so everyone knows, the Aston was capable of mid 58s with 60 % tyre wear and probably not too far off that at 70%. I know this for a fact as I done it in test runs.

Sorry I didn't get your reasoning for ignoring tyre degradation and giving out a quali lap in there

It's ok, you made a mistake, everyone does, let's just try and rectify it asap in the current and future results

I must admit I wasn't 4-5 secs off my pace on worn tyres more like 2-3 and that's the truth...the Aston is good on worn tyres

my concern is if you are 5 seconds off pace then why not pit and change strategy.

IRT Trash wrote:my concern is if you are 5 seconds off pace then why not pit and change strategy.

Eh? We are talking about the last lap 'that never happened' for some people as they were dished out their quali times because of starting at a different race time, which is a flawed system.

"Sandbagging" to get into a lower lobby is not as beneficial as you think. The further you drop, the more time you have to make up, on people in the upper lobbies who are quite likely running around the same pace as you anyway, therefore virtually negating the benefit of running in clear air.

On top of that, you'll be in a lobby with people who potentially are much less experienced in terms of racecraft, and particularly in anticipating the dan dare manoeuvres of a "hard charger", increasing the risk of spending at least a portion of the race losing time with a damaged car.

Please don't take my comments as "defending a flawed design" or being "closed earred". I'm open to suggestion, but until I hear something that a) would work in practice, and b) is actually a better solution than that which we already use, I will continue to "argue" to force the suggestions to become distilled/refined into something that fits points a) and b). For example, I like MAGiCs suggestion about the start time extrapolation. I can see the logic, and how it would work in practice. I would like to test the idea and try it with some hosts on a smaller scale, but on paper, it looks like a good solution for the future.

CQR Aero wrote:"Sandbagging" to get into a lower lobby is not as beneficial as you think. The further you drop, the more time you have to make up, on people in the upper lobbies who are quite likely running around the same pace as you anyway, therefore virtually negating the benefit of running in clear air.

On top of that, you'll be in a lobby with people who potentially are much less experienced in terms of racecraft, and particularly in anticipating the dan dare manoeuvres of a "hard charger", increasing the risk of spending at least a portion of the race losing time with a damaged car.

Please don't take my comments as "defending a flawed design" or being "closed earred". I'm open to suggestion, but until I hear something that a) would work in practice, and b) is actually a better solution than that which we already use, I will continue to "argue" to force the suggestions to become distilled/refined into something that fits points a) and b). For example, I like MAGiCs suggestion about the start time extrapolation. I can see the logic, and how it would work in practice. I would like to test the idea and try it with some hosts on a smaller scale, but on paper, it looks like a good solution for the future.

How can you say i'm not going to change something which doesn't make sense or logic in the first place?! You have just done the whole race with tyre degredation and then negated the effect of tyre degradation for one lap a lap which has cost people places.

And going back to that again, you STILL haven't given a good enough reason for giving out quali times and ignoring tyre degradation, feel like i'm hitting my head against a wall of stubbornness here, I want an answer.

Will, you keep pushing this tyre degradation thing very hard, but you're really not listening (probably because I'm not giving the answer you want).

The "fact" that the Z4 goes off its tyres at 60% wear and you lose 5 secs per lap is not something I can accept as a fair measure to apply to all cars. I know from my own experience and the other Aston drivers' opinions that the way the Aston handles itself on drag tyres is far better than the Z4, and it simply does not fall off as much, as soon.

If the start time balancing means that someones finish time would have been "before the end of the race" (e.g. you finished at 1h45 dead, and your lobby was 30s behind the one above) and you'd have got an extra lap in, the extra lap is granted. Then, obviously we can't have a finish time before the end of the race so an equivalent lap time needs to be added. In the past (and currently) this has always been based on the drivers' qualifying time, as it's a proven lap time that that driver can achieve (does not necessarily reflect that driver's ultimate race pace lap ability, only what he got in qually).

I understand your point about degradation, however until I hear something on how to quantify the degredation in terms of times (I doubt I will hear anything because if I knew a way, I would already be using/considering it, but I'm open to suggestion) then the fairest quantifiable lap time I can add is the qually time.

The fairest way to sort this out, is not to have a rolling start. That way you negate the need for any mathematical working out and race to a finish point - in this case an end time of 1hr 45. Still have the lobby penalty of 4 sec per lobby after A lobby.

Would FranFan have finished in front of Hainesy if we had all started from a standing start? I personally don't think so, as there was only a second difference after Fran had the "qualifying lap" added to his time.

Rolling starts are good for the Sprints. Do we really need this extra level of complexity to an endurance race?

T

All this over one position?

Look guys, I can understand how annoying it is and with this being the first time we have had this come up we have had to do something to try and balance it out. The qualifying time is the only recorded time we have from the night with these cars - and we can't rightly guess a time that Chaddy would have completed his lap. You don't know how he handles the Aston on those tyres, nor can you assume the degradation works in the same way with every car.

Hainsey has already said that he understands this result can't be changed, but that we can find a solution to it in the future - one that Chris has said we will look into trying. Wumba, I get that your annoyed for your team mate but you are still trying to change a result that he has accepted. There is no way after a defence like this that I can also believe that you wouldn't be defending Hainsey this much if the shoe was on the other foot. It is your right as a team mate to try and defend him, but he has accepted the result. It's not ideal, but at least we can hopefully move on with it and have a better way of doing it in place in the future.

Maybe Standing Starts like the TCC would help...next season.

Richy59 wrote:All this over one position?

Look guys, I can understand how annoying it is and with this being the first time we have had this come up we have had to do something to try and balance it out. The qualifying time is the only recorded time we have from the night with these cars - and we can't rightly guess a time that Chaddy would have completed his lap. You don't know how he handles the Aston on those tyres, nor can you assume the degradation works in the same way with every car.

Hainsey has already said that he understands this result can't be changed, but that we can find a solution to it in the future - one that Chris has said we will look into trying. Wumba, I get that your annoyed for your team mate but you are still trying to change a result that he has accepted. There is no way after a defence like this that I can also believe that you wouldn't be defending Hainsey this much if the shoe was on the other foot. It is your right as a team mate to try and defend him, but he has accepted the result. It's not ideal, but at least we can hopefully move on with it and have a better way of doing it in place in the future.

Maybe Standing Starts like the TCC would help...next season.

I'm insisting because I want it fixed as soon as possible, and there are two solutions that have sprung to mind already, one that Mark has mentioned, and another is the standing start, I definitely do not want the current system to be used in the ISCC either...

Chris has already said that we will be looking into testing the new system for use in the next round and if it works then the ISCC will get the same treatment. We can't retroactively go back and have standing starts on last nights race or ask everyone re-run their race last night with the new timing system can we?

CQR Aero wrote:
I understand your point about degradation, however until I hear something on how to quantify the degredation in terms of times (I doubt I will hear anything because if I knew a way, I would already be using/considering it, but I'm open to suggestion) then the fairest quantifiable lap time I can add is the qually time.

Geez, I thought we solved this last night with Mark's (Magic) excellent solution for future races, problem solved. If you want to keep things as they are then it is very easy to quantify a lap time that is allowing for degradation, get a driver to take his car up to 70/80% tyre wear and see what time he does and then compare it to his best qually time and use that difference to add to the final lap time. In reality everyone is going to be in the 60/80% tyre wear situation at the end of the race and if they are not that would be the punishment for qualifying in a lower lobby.

The way it is at the moment is flawed and I think everyone knows that I finished 5th but I'm letting that go and just want it sorted for future races so we all compete on a level playing field which is something TORA stands for and why it is the best organised race org out there imo. Because if it stays how it is I know that I for one will be doing a very slow parade lap in the next race which is in effect sandbagging and something that has no place here but I have to work with what we have.

I agree with Worm that the real problem is that we race against drivers in other lobbies. Usually if you're at the end of the pack, having real battles on track you can't go as fast as the driver who is running in clean air at front one lobby lower. The 4 seconds lobby offset dont't match up for this. However, this "ghost racing" is a feature of the TORA endurance races to overcome the lobby limitation (and I don't want to get rid of it), so we all have to deal with the consequences. Magic's good suggestion may fix one part, but does not solve the whole problem.

If sandbagging a parade lap gets you the benefit of a qualifying lap over a final lap on worn tyres - look for people do be doing it 'accidentally' because it will save them a couple of seconds.

I would say that qualifying lap +2 seconds is what the credited lap should be timed at. It would be more representative of a lap on worn tyres and not handicapping or penalising any driver too much as well as effectively nullifying any advantage that may be gained through the aforementioned sandbagging.

Most people cannot run a qualifying lap for 52 laps so they are typically going to be losing a few tenths there. If you were to allow 1 second for pure tyre degredation you are at a fraction of a second which doesn't work with the race timer so you round up rather than rounding down.

It may not be scientific but it is a lot more representative of a lap on worn tyres than just crediting a lap at qualifying pace that is, in my opinion, even more unrealistic.

True, but you're also assuming that the person's qualifying time is truly representative of their pace. If someone sandbags their qually, then they get a slow lap time added.... Just saying!

sandbag????

BG Cowboy wrote:If sandbagging a parade lap gets you the benefit of a qualifying lap over a final lap on worn tyres - look for people do be doing it 'accidentally' because it will save them a couple of seconds.

I would say that qualifying lap +2 seconds is what the credited lap should be timed at. It would be more representative of a lap on worn tyres and not handicapping or penalising any driver too much as well as effectively nullifying any advantage that may be gained through the aforementioned sandbagging.

Most people cannot run a qualifying lap for 52 laps so they are typically going to be losing a few tenths there. If you were to allow 1 second for pure tyre degredation you are at a fraction of a second which doesn't work with the race timer so you round up rather than rounding down.

It may not be scientific but it is a lot more representative of a lap on worn tyres than just crediting a lap at qualifying pace that is, in my opinion, even more unrealistic.

I can't see how you can just add 2 seconds to a qualy lap to get a tyre deg lap time. As mentioned before, different cars handle tyre deg differently. Just as an Example so don't take this personally, the Aston handles the tyre deg better than the Z4. So could the Z4 potentially end up gaining a bit of time.

If the Z4 loses 5 seconds at 80%, but you're only going to add 2 seconds, then the Z4 would have effectively gained 3 seconds.