MSA TORA GT World Championship - Results & Standings

Dan, I'm not being funny but you were running 2 min laps at 60% tyre wear (which is 2 secs off your qually at least), and your car looked to be getting difficult to handle, so I'd say there's not a great deal of difference in the cars in regards to that.

OK, like I said before the Aston can do mid 58s at 60%, and the car did feel fine. Granted, I made a few little errors, like downshifting after I got off the brakes caused me to drift through the last 2 corners in my first stint. And at points I was losing concentration for a bit. Maybe, at 60% wear I was coming up to the end of my stint so took it a bit easier to make sure I didn't make a mistake.

Exactamondo Dan, when in the race its very hard to pull off qually lap-like times which is what would happen at the end of a long, hard on the hands race like an endurance event. Adding 2 secs would be quite lenient imo.

The Z4's were running with Shifty's Aston throughout the stints and towards the end of one he was struggling a lot more than me.

Reduce the time added and the Z4 gains more, increase it and the Aston loses more. I think that 2 seconds would be a fair and conservative amount to cover the entire field unless you have different amounts for GT3, GT2 and GT1 cars.

Regardless, a lap at qualifying pace is still more unrealistic than a lap at qualifying +2s.

The point I tried to make originally is, when the original tyre deg was brought up it was between 70 - 80%. And that different cars and drivers handle the drop off differently too. Like it was said earlier, the Z4 loses 5 seconds a lap at 70 -80% but the Aston probably around 3 seconds. So to just add 2 seconds means yes the Aston would gain 1 second but potentially the Z4 could have gained 2-3 seconds. And again other cars could have gained even more than that.

It would be unfair to add a specific time i.e. 2 seconds onto the persons qualy lap for their lap gained as it is circumstantial on tire deg. I think Magic's idea should be implemented as can see no argument against it. Would provide instant classified results with no extra calculations needed.

Question: why is there an aversion to the standing start procedure provided within the game itself?

Is it considered unfair? Is it considered dangerous? Is it considered boring?

...ok, strictly speaking that was four questions but I'm struggling to fathom why a more complicated system is employed.

Due to the colour of this thread I feel I must once again point out that this is not a dig, this is a genuine enquiry with no ulterior motive.

I would'nt go to standing starts, as it would favour mid engined cars off the line and that isn't fair on the front engined cars. Plus at a track like we ran last night there are two tight 1st turns and I feel the only way there was'nt any crashes is due to the cars being a little spaced out.

The Aston is really good on its tyres and Ive done alot of running on worn tyres as I did 4 stops at Sunset and was told by Daniel to pit every 25 minutes last night but I went over that and never lost time to the guys behind me. I did 75%/75%/80% and got home on tyres 72%.

Here's the other problem with using qualifying times.
Car A qualifys with a 2:00 flat. Car B qualifys with a 1:59 flat.
Car A finishes half a second ahead of Car B but both get the same race time.
In a situation where they both get credited a lap at their qualifying times, Car B would technically be ahead in the standings despite finishing behind Car A.

Also, what about if the car being credited the lap has substantial damage and is running slower? It would be unfair to the person who they now finish ahead of becuase there is no way they could run that qualifying lap with damage.

If common sense for the first scenario sees Car A ahead of Car B then the same common sense should be applied to the second and to what happened last night where a lap credited at qualifying pace would be unrealistic.

Qually +2sec may not always be right for every car with every single percentage of damage or tyre wear but being sometimes right is better than being always wrong in my book.

Fixed distance races with a standing start would be the only way to be 100% correct and you will have more accurate timing with that too.

FranchittiFan wrote:I would'nt go to standing starts, as it would favour mid engined cars off the line and that isn't fair on the front engined cars. Plus at a track like we ran last night there are two tight 1st turns and I feel the only way there was'nt any crashes is due to the cars being a little spaced out.

The Aston is really good on its tyres and Ive done alot of running on worn tyres as I did 4 stops at Sunset and was told by Daniel to pit every 25 minutes last night but I went over that and never lost time to the guys behind me. I did 75%/75%/80% and got home on tyres 72%.

There are still crashes in the first corner. I don't know where this whole argument that standing starts create more havoc in the first turn even comes from on an organized site. Regardless, it comes down to driver error and if someone is going to wad you up on a standing start they are going to do the same on a rolling. You have at least a 60 mph speed difference between the two and people are still bunched up. If anything having a rolling start is more dangerous with the Lamborghini having excellent qualifying pace and being out front while not having as much guts as the Audi or BMW.

Figuring in the launch is part of the car selection process and it's a two hour race. You can't win the race on the launch or the first corner in an endurance race.

FranchittiFan wrote:I would'nt go to standing starts, as it would favour mid engined cars off the line and that isn't fair on the front engined cars. Plus at a track like we ran last night there are two tight 1st turns and I feel the only way there was'nt any crashes is due to the cars being a little spaced out.

Ok, so in simple terms you would say that standing starts are:

A - Unfair

...and

B - Dangerous

Whilst I'd find it hard to disagree with the first point, I'd still be inclined to say that any inherent disadvantage - from a standing start - would be an acceptable compromise. All the cars have their advantages and disadvantages and the addition of an extra variable would do little to effect the equilibrium.

In terms of it being dangerous I have to say I don't really agree. The rolling starts do little or nothing to alleviate the potential risk of incident and in certain circumstances can work to the contrary.

When I weigh up the small compromises that - I admit - have to be made with a standing start against the convoluted, troublesome benefits of the rolling starts, I can't help but conclude that the standing starts are preferential.

Ok, so you beat me to it Worm...

...but I wholeheartedly agree, as you can see above

Rolling starts look cool

I havent read much of the above but i cann see they have been updated thats all that botheres me, pretty happy to be 39th in world when i considers myself a bottom lobby guy.

carry on bellow this post
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

If I put in a great Q lap and Im bet off the line by mid engined cars on a standing start I'm going to be pissed, why should cars like the Audi with a mid engine layout and great accel get that sort of advantage?

In a Enduro race I dont think we should just be racing the people in our lobby, we should be racing the whole field. I said nothing about losing out to a lobby B driver at sunset I just took it and moved on, but Now that I'm the lobby b driver theres this huge uproar about the rules? hell im sure lobby C guys bet lobby B drivers.

If we could have bigger lobbys this wouldn't be such a big issue.

In the Real world racing, Standing Starts have never been performed in endurance races outside of Bathurst, so why should we do them?

If we even go as far as using the proposed TCC warm up lap and standing start there, It's going to be even more complex to get right than the rolling starts, especially with majority of those who wont be qualifying higher than 15th, where's your gridslot? there isnt one!

And there's no point using the "programmed by turn 10" standing start, especially with the live coverage, which will inevitably miss it trying to get into spectate.

Standing Start debate over, move on.

FranchittiFan wrote:If I put in a great Q lap and Im bet off the line by mid engined cars on a standing start I'm going to be pissed, why should cars like the Audi with a mid engine layout and great accel get that sort of advantage?

In a Enduro race I dont think we should just be racing the people in our lobby, we should be racing the whole field. I said nothing about losing out to a lobby B driver at sunset I just took it and moved on, but Now that I'm the lobby b driver theres this huge uproar about the rules? hell im sure lobby C guys bet lobby B drivers.

If we could have bigger lobbys this wouldn't be such a big issue.

The reason this is an issue Chaddy is because I did actually beat you. Its not going to affect me though as I'm not fast enough to be challenging for a title but can you imagine one of the fast guys losing the championship because of this rule, it would be totally wrong.

Standing starts are the best way,and safest way as pointed out by Worm, to solve this whole issue, so what if you lose a place off the grid, if you are fast enough you will soon get that place back. Remember these races are 1hr45mins and you are not going to lose the race by losing one place by the first corner, you still have 1hr44mins and 50 seconds to overcome that.

BG Cowboy wrote:Here's the other problem with using qualifying times.
Car A qualifys with a 2:00 flat. Car B qualifys with a 1:59 flat.
Car A finishes half a second ahead of Car B but both get the same race time.
In a situation where they both get credited a lap at their qualifying times, Car B would technically be ahead in the standings despite finishing behind Car A.

Also, what about if the car being credited the lap has substantial damage and is running slower? It would be unfair to the person who they now finish ahead of becuase there is no way they could run that qualifying lap with damage.

If common sense for the first scenario sees Car A ahead of Car B then the same common sense should be applied to the second and to what happened last night where a lap credited at qualifying pace would be unrealistic.

Qually +2sec may not always be right for every car with every single percentage of damage or tyre wear but being sometimes right is better than being always wrong in my book.

Fixed distance races with a standing start would be the only way to be 100% correct and you will have more accurate timing with that too.

+1

FranchittiFan wrote:If I put in a great Q lap and Im bet off the line by mid engined cars on a standing start I'm going to be pissed, why should cars like the Audi with a mid engine layout and great accel get that sort of advantage?

In a Enduro race I dont think we should just be racing the people in our lobby, we should be racing the whole field. I said nothing about losing out to a lobby B driver at sunset I just took it and moved on, but Now that I'm the lobby b driver theres this huge uproar about the rules? hell im sure lobby C guys bet lobby B drivers.

If we could have bigger lobbys this wouldn't be such a big issue.

As I've already said - and conceded - the standing start would add another dimension to the race and quite possibly your initial car choice. I would never suggest that this be implemented mid-season for this reason alone. The point I'm trying to make is much broader. The negligible implications - such as the one you've outlined above - on an entire season would in my opinion be superfluous to the benefit of simplifying the whole process.

In regard to last nights issue, I have no interest in it. I am simply trying to move the thread on from the previous tit-for-tat into a more constructive debate.

FranchittiFan wrote:If I put in a great Q lap and Im bet off the line by mid engined cars on a standing start I'm going to be pissed

Now Chaddy imagine how pissed off you would be if someone beat you that you never got the chance to race or even see. If someone makes you that mad by out launching you when you have the opportunity to pass them in the next two hours I can see a controller going through some sheet rock, a drop kicked television, and an Xbox that suffers a mishap with a hammer.

AMR Garage wrote:In the Real world racing, Standing Starts have never been performed in endurance races outside of Bathurst, so why should we do them?

If we even go as far as using the proposed TCC warm up lap and standing start there, It's going to be even more complex to get right than the rolling starts, especially with majority of those who wont be qualifying higher than 15th, where's your gridslot? there isnt one!

And there's no point using the "programmed by turn 10" standing start, especially with the live coverage, which will inevitably miss it trying to get into spectate.

Standing Start debate over, move on.

Real world, real world, real world, real world. This is a video game and if someone is being wronged because of the limitations of the video game you make a compromise.

You want to simulate real world lets get rid of the GT1 and GT3 cars from the series. We can also only run cars from the same year as regulations for each car change and so do their available downforce and power restrictions. Getting pretty close to single make/car now aren't we? Now you can start running realistic camber and damping numbers from a real world perspective. Guess who just started running lobby Z?

It's a video game and you cannot keep making the real world argument over and over when compromises to adjust for the fact that it is a video game have been made from the start in every aspect of the series. It's done to eliminate the imbalance and limitations of the game.

Real world debate over, move on.

AMR Garage wrote:In the Real world racing, Standing Starts have never been performed in endurance races outside of Bathurst, so why should we do them?

And there's no point using the "programmed by turn 10" standing start, especially with the live coverage, which will inevitably miss it trying to get into spectate.

Standing Start debate over, move on.

I knew this would come up eventually. I ask you, why should we seek to emulate a real world process for which we have no sufficient platform? I don't see any merit in trying to circumvent what the game has laid out for us just in the name of 'realism'.

Now, I'm a reasonable individual and I'm happy to admit that the problem with the live stream is something I hadn't thought about. You have a valid point.

Unfortunately, you then took it upon yourself to arrogantly announce that the debate is over, thus showing that you are somewhat 'unreasonable'. I emphasise my earlier point about wanting to strike up a constructive debate and I take exception to the fact that you feel you can just shut it down in an open forum where this kind of discussion should be welcomed.

I hope everyone else can see who is trying to be reasonable and who is not.

I'm just happy to be 7th and having fun racing.

+1 Bullet

And me I'm happy as a monkey with a big banana with 14 th and I loved the racing and the whole event and set up well done Tora

CQR Cobblepop wrote:Unfortunately, you then took it upon yourself to arrogantly announce that the debate is over.

[Sarcasm] Yeah that went well.. [/sarcasm] didnt know where the standing start argument came from, then read the last two pages again, saw it sprouting out of the Hainsey-FranchittiFan position change, which seems to have been settled. Sorry about that. Made a right dock of myself.

Completely happy with 33rd.