MSA TORA GT World Championship - Results & Standings

CQR D4N13L wrote:If this isn't a witch hunt, what is it?

Everytime something benefits an AMR driver it's because TORA are biased towards V-AMR.

Just getting the rules decision correct, that is all. And to be honest I couldn't care what team it was for.

Bandit1097 wrote:But you also got to remember that F1 doesn't have to deal with multiple lobbies to run or connection issues. I didn't qualify because Steven's invites weren't entering my message box. So, my suggestion could only allow people who had connection issues or were forgotten would be able to take part in that extra time setting session after the conclusion of the race.

What are you on about? Make it legible please.

BG Scarlett wrote:

CQR D4N13L wrote:If this isn't a witch hunt, what is it?

Everytime something benefits an AMR driver it's because TORA are biased towards V-AMR.

Just getting the rules decision correct, that is all. And to be honest I couldn't care what team it was for.

I would await for Chris aka aero for reasons given, cant ask series head he quit after round 1 feedback appreciated for this however going forward.

Which is something we need to give feedback on rather than go on about changing results. There was no rule in place so it could of gone either way. If it would of benifited myself or yourself we wouldnt be complaining at all. I understand exactly what your saying and im not looking at it as its just against VAMR im looking at it neutral as I dont know if it effects any standings.

It needs clarifying but not in a way in which it changes results that were final. F1 change results for incidents or rule infringements, as there is no rule there should be know change. Hopefully one can be put in place before ISCC or future GT's so all this is there in black and white before we sign up.

Every time I wander into this section there seems to be an argument about one thing or another. No wonder Biggs stepped down, what a ball ache.

CQR CHRiS wrote:Which is something we need to give feedback on rather than go on about changing results. There was no rule in place so it could of gone either way. If it would of benifited myself or yourself we wouldnt be complaining at all. I understand exactly what your saying and im not looking at it as its just against VAMR im looking at it neutral as I dont know if it effects any standings.

It needs clarifying but not in a way in which it changes results that were final. F1 change results for incidents or rule infringements, as there is no rule there should be know change. Hopefully one can be put in place before ISCC or future GT's so all this is there in black and white before we sign up.

I agree Chris and lets base this on fact and not something which could have possibly and probably would have happened. Shifty is very fast indeed, but he did not qualify.

BG Vs VAMR again, look guys we got a good result at Motegi after I came 5th from started lobby B, BG were very vocal of that. Then at Nurburgring you guys got a great result from starting in lobby B, nothing was said of it. and now we have a lobby A driver in C lobby who beats a BG driver and now its all a huge fuss again???

Shifty was ALWAYS going to get a good result from starting in lobby C but thats just how it works, take it on the chin and I'm very sure it'll be worked better for FM5.

Kilroy8 wrote:Every time I wander into this section there seems to be an argument about one thing or another. No wonder Biggs stepped down, what a ball ache.

Yeah, it's a shame as I actually liked him.

CQR Franchitti wrote:BG Vs VAMR again, look guys we got a good result at Motegi after I came 5th from started lobby B, BG were very vocal of that. Then at Nurburgring you guys got a great result from starting in lobby B, nothing was said of it. and now we have a lobby A driver in C lobby who beats a BG driver and now its all a huge fuss again???

Shifty was ALWAYS going to get a good result from starting in lobby C but thats just how it works, take it on the chin and I'm very sure it'll be worked better for FM5.

Fanchitti - behave - this is not BG v VAMR. Read the posts.

Just how I see it and I'm allowed to have my view.

CQR Franchitti wrote:Just how I see it and I'm allowed to have my view.

Well... If you read the posts, this has nothing to do with Shifty beating a BG driver.

Carry on.

Driver A has a bad qualifying session and only has their slow warm-up lap clean. They start at the top of the bottom lobby and then they are credited with that slow lap time if they make a lap up.

Driver B misses qualifying but gets credited with a lap time faster than Driver A (because that is the pace they were running in the race) then Driver A has no advantage to turning up for qualifying and being on time for the event.

With both drivers covering the same distance and both drivers being credited a lap then Driver B is potentially gaining race time, positions and points relative to Driver A and all other drivers who run at a pace between Driver B and the lobby they are capable of running in.

Using the slowest possible qualifying time eliminates any advantage that Driver B could be gaining under any scenario.

CQR CHRiS wrote:It needs clarifying but not in a way in which it changes results that were final. F1 change results for incidents or rule infringements, as there is no rule there should be know change.

The rule had to be made up on the spot (as there was not one there previously to cover this scenario) so that the results could be finalised. All I am trying to do is ascertain why CQR Aero made the ruling in the way that he did because to me it appears flawed.

I too want a ruling that is clearly defined and based on sound reasoning which is why I have proposed an alternative solution.


If anyone thinks my suggested alternative solution is unfair I'd be interested in hearing why.

although the whole came up after Shifty beating a BG driver.

It is unfair Cowboy, Shifty's average lap time for the race was 1.55.4, so to give him a 2.01+ lap is wrong. As there is no qualifying time to use, maybe the average race lap time should be used instead.

(1.55.4 is based on the 105 min race distance, minus the out lap time (e.g. 3 mins), then divided by the 53 laps completed)

CQR Franchitti wrote:although the whole came up after Shifty beating a BG driver.

Another great rebuttal by Franchitti!

CQR MAGiC wrote:It is unfair Cowboy, Shifty's average lap time for the race was 1.55.4, so to give him a 2.01+ lap is wrong. As there is no qualifying time to use, maybe the average race lap time should be used instead.

(1.55.4 is based on the 105 min race distance, minus the out lap time (e.g. 3 mins), then divided by the 53 laps completed)

Magic, it is unfair, but he didn't attend the qualifying. For all we know, shifty could have attended qualifying and lagged out on the out lap. What then? Don't worry shifty, we know you're faster and therefore we'll take your time from your race pace?

Would Aero honestly make a rule up on the spot? I dont think so, In the ISCC the ruling about DNQ drivers got changed after I couldn't set a time yet still won my class by 60 seconds. At the next round any DNQ drivers had to start last and also pull into the pits at the start.

Too much Bullship.

CQR Franchitti wrote:Would Aero honestly make a rule up on the spot? I dont think so, In the ISCC the ruling about DNQ drivers got changed after I couldn't set a time yet still won my class by 60 seconds. At the next round any DNQ drivers had to start last and also pull into the pits at the start.

Let me congratulate you on your victory - Well done. But I still do not have a clue what this has to do with last nights ruling?

Oh gawd...

OK guys, let's go about this amicably. Scarlett has already stated that this isn't against CQR or VAMR. It just happens to involve us this time. But they have a right to express their concerns on the rules or decisions made in this championship.

I also want to apologize to BG for my earlier post, where I said "Every time something benefits an AMR driver it's because TORA are biased towards V-AMR."

This wasn't aimed at them, it was an observation that it just seems that VAMR always get caught up in this stuff.

At the end of the day, it the holes in the rules that are making these problems. The only reason we're discussing this is because we're 2 of the few teams that finished the season.

+1 Daniel. This is not CQR v BG v VAMR, it just happens to involve us because we're the ones left fighting in a championship with poorly thought out rules devised by someone who's no longer around and the rest of the staff are trying to make the best of it.

CQR MAGiC wrote:It is unfair Cowboy, Shifty's average lap time for the race was 1.55.4, so to give him a 2.01+ lap is wrong. As there is no qualifying time to use, maybe the average race lap time should be used instead.

(1.55.4 is based on the 105 min race distance, minus the out lap time (e.g. 3 mins), then divided by the 53 laps completed)

Except the race wasn't 105 minutes, it was nearly 107 minutes.

Shifty is being credited with a lap 1 tenth slower than my qualifying time which, as your slightly broken maths has shown, is definitely not the race pace. Nobody starts a qualifying lap on 14:59.900 and nobody starts a final lap at 14:59.900.

If my suggestion previously in this thread of credited laps being based off a race pace was rejected then why should that change for this situation?

If qualifying times had been used in every previous situation, they should be used now. It's not like he is starting at the back because he qualified but had a penalty that was applied - he started at the back because he missed qualifying and therefore essentially qualified last by not taking part.

The ruling Scarlett is about a DNQ driver who finished really high which is what happened here isn't it. A way of stopping it is to use a rule like the ISCC! Thats my point.