MSA TORA GT World Championship - Results & Standings

cant have a vamr if we run spec clios all year.....

Only joking

SelectiveRogue wrote: cant have a vamr if we run spec clios all year.....

Only joking

Trust you to comment Mr VW Beetle fan! lol

Oh Dan....not 'THAT' again.....

So I take it that this is being brushed under the carpet because the season is over?

Are you hoping that by waiting long enough then you can't retroactively apply a rule change because the current one is fundamentally flawed?

What's going on?

The next season is next year, HEAPS of time for rule changing, why should we rush out next seasons rules now? It may not be on FM5 anyway.

Because with other endurance events on TORA's calendar, there is the possibility of a DNQ driver being in the position to be credited laps in other races too.

By establishing a rule now then it means that you will have something to apply should the same situation occur at a future date.

Im sure the staff have spoken about it for ISCC and TEC

CQR Franchitti wrote:Im sure the staff have spoken about it for ISCC and TEC

How sure?
You're not staff so you wouldn't have been involved in the conversation.

Please leave it for the staff to respond.

I talk to some of them often Luke and I'm very sure they have.

CQR Franchitti wrote:I talk to some of them often Luke and I'm very sure they have.

Please, Chaddy, leave it. I have no issues with you and do not want you to become involved with an issue that, for want of a better phrase, is above your pay grade.

My issue is with the instantaneous ruling that was made and how it adversely affects those who qualify vs. those who do not.
I have provided an alternative rule set that is far more comprehensive along with what I believe to good, logical reasoning as to why it is the superior choice.



I'm wanting a direct response from staff and not some Chinese whispers.

Has what I've said been taken on board? Is it being discussed by staff? If it is, why has nothing been said? Is a rule change on the cards? If so, are the results of the final round going to be corrected retroactively?

BG Cowboy wrote:

CQR Franchitti wrote:I talk to some of them often Luke and I'm very sure they have.

Please, Chaddy, leave it. I have no issues with you and do not want you to become involved with an issue that, for want of a better phrase, is above your pay grade.

My issue is with the instantaneous ruling that was made and how it adversely affects those who qualify vs. those who do not.
I have provided an alternative rule set that is far more comprehensive along with what I believe to good, logical reasoning as to why it is the superior choice.



I'm wanting a direct response from staff and not some Chinese whispers.

Has what I've said been taken on board? Is it being discussed by staff? If it is, why has nothing been said? Is a rule change on the cards? If so, are the results of the final round going to be corrected retroactively?

There was no precedent to go by in this situation, however my reasoning was explained (maybe I shouldn't do that any more because it just opens cans of worms) and was sound. Simply because a decision is made quickly does not mean it is wrong. Nor does the fact that you disagree with the decision mean you are right. A decision was able to be made quickly because I have a firm grasp of my reasoning for the way the points etc are calculated because I created and maintain the majority of the system. That's not to say I haven't considered your argument, but I don't find it to be a better or reasonable assumption. I am looking into the circumstances for future series rules, but it may or may not be relevant to the specific series you mentioned (ISCC and TEC) anyway depending on how those races are scored/distances measured. The results for the GT series are now final and will not be changed. Chad was trying to be helpful, and was correct in everything he said. Your tone suggests a level of contempt/disrespect towards him that I find offensive.

OK, results are final - issue is dead/swept under the carpet/whatever you want to call it.

Naturally you, having made the ruling in the first place, would believe that you were right to make the ruling you did under the circumstances you did. I never said that as the ruling was made quickly that it was wrong or that because I disagree with the outcome it that it was wrong. The only thing that makes you more right is your level as a staff member, that you got to make the rule in the first place and that changing it now would be admitting that you were wrong to make the initial ruling in the way that you did.

People ask for second opinions all the time and rules are often reviewed by a committee before they are approved (something I acknowledge could not have happened in this situation). Therefore there was nothing unreasonable (to my mind) about asking for a second set of eyes and ears, with a similar level of seniority, impartiality, experience and respect to look over the ruling you made vs. the alternative I offered.

Chad was trying to be helpful and, to a certain extent, he was. However, I was wanting a direct response from staff and I made that clear. To try and suggest anything about the tone of a post when all you have is the written word is quite frankly ridiculous (borderline offensive to me) and suggests more about they way you are reading it than the way it was intended.

Cowboy were you the only person to ignore Aero's first response?

He gave his reasoning and to be honest your making a mountain out a mole hill.

Many TORA staff had acknowledged they would look into the system after your idea but the relentless posting demanding that your idea is correct and points should be changed will only in my eyes annoy the people who have any say on the rules. Chaddy was helping in what he posted and tried to give you and insight as to what staff where talking about, but to continually ignore his response and demand any answer from staff is ridiculous. Aero should of just locked this thread as the attitude that came across in your post did not deserve the response you demanded.

Chris - I saw Aero's first post, did you miss the part where he said "I welcome the discussion and am open to considering alternative rationales"

It had been a week without updates so I had wondered if my 'alternative rationale' had been taken on board and considered at all by the staff. If it had been and a rule change was imminent, Would it only apply to cases going forward or would it also be applied retroactively to the last round of the GTs too.

CQR Aero answered - case closed.

While Chaddy may have good connections with the staff, he should not be speaking on their behalf as he is not staff (unless he is?). It's helpful to know that the staff might be talking about it but without hearing from the staff themselves, nobody can be certain about what is happening.


And now you're jumping in too for some reason?

I wouldnt say im jumping in as i have posted many times on the subject.

If you wanted a direct response from staff only, use the magical link to private messaging. That way rather than come across in messages which would be taken by anyone as disrespectful the person it is intended for will help you only.

Why should a rule be thought of in a week? There is no season 11 so there is plenty of time. Would you rather TORA rushed into a rule and it caused more issues then it did sort? I dont think so.

I dont think anyone would of even had this problem if it wasnt with a VAMR in the first place. As many people have benifitted in the past through the same ruling. But the constant barrage of messages that the results should be changed when they were final is ridiculous. Aero wanted opinions for future series not on one were he cleared up his decision for everyone to see.

OK - let me clear something up - THERE WAS NO MALICE, DISRESPECT OR AGGRESSION INTENDED IN ANY OF MY POSTS.


The only usergroup I can PM is the 'Race Marshals'. I felt that PMing each staff member individually may have come across as undermining CQR Aero which is why I posted in this thread.

If CQR Aero can make a rule in 1 minute, asking for discussion over a week later shouldn't be a problem, right?

^yes, that was meant in jest^


Constant barrage of messages that the results should be changed?
The thread was dead for a week and even then I asked about an update on a suggestion about a rule change. Not once in this thread did I see that my 'alternative rationale' had been noted and will be considered for future series. Any race with an endurance element could have exactly the same situation happen (where someone with a DNQ is in a position to get a lap credited back to them).



Finally, to suggest that nobody would have had a problem if it wasn't with VAMR is the biggest load of nonsensical BS I have EVER heard.



I'm done posting in this thread. CQR Franchitti is a nice guy who was trying to be helpful. CQR Aero spoke on behalf of the staff and gave me an answer from them. Now CHRiS is just piling on top trying to make something out of nothing.

Have a nice day

Well it happened many times throughout the series, yet this one seems to be the one that is being used. So wouldnt it of meant a whole season on results redone just to suit one occasion a place was lost?

I wouldnt really say im piling on top i would say im having my opionion as you are entitled to yours, isnt that what you wanted? Right?

Oh well thats my OPINION on matters as it involved a CQR driver who gained a place by being quick enough to do so.

When is this going to be archived? And from a neutral point of view I get Cowboys reasoning. However, we are all respectable & fair to each other on track & that should be reflected on the forums.

CQR CHRiS wrote:
Why should a rule be thought of in a week? There is no season 11 so there is plenty of time. Would you rather TORA rushed into a rule and it caused more issues then it did sort? I dont think so.

That's funny because the rule implemented was decided on in a matter of seconds, instead of actually planning beforehand and then blaming the previous GT organizer when the instantaneous ruling got found out (which it did) and even when there were better suggestions raised.

Cowboy asked why there hadn't been an update with the rules in a week since he last posted. Which he has the right to ask about. Since the results are final now, why should a change of rule be rushed. If the staff feel the need to spend longer looking into making the best rules they can then so be it, whether its a week or a month, it doesn't matter how long it takes.

What are people expecting TORA to do. Change the rules after the season, and then change the results of the finished season retrospectively? If there's a flaw with the rules you can't just go back and undo whatever effects the rules had. In real-world motorsports, using MSA guidelines, you cant just change the rules and then the results to suite whoever wants to moan about it.

Aero used his best judgement to apply the rules fairly based on previous precedent. To change the rules and the results of this race, he would have to go back and change the results of all the other Enduro rounds.

Look, at the end of the day, the season's over, deal with it and move on.

Yes season is over , but you can catch the action on motors tv next week:)

already TIVO'd it

Got it series linked already!

Me too can't wait to see it....is it the tora team commentating ? I think its fair to say you'll get quite a bit of coverage Dan can't wait to see the Aston on the telly