F1RWRS 2016 Rules Discussion (READ THIS TEAM OWNERS)

[Aerospeed]

My brain is full of bathplug

This is highly confusing. I will agree with Lappy and Kostas.

[the Masked Lapwing]

Right, I'm still not sure about some of these rule changes, so once again I'm going to point out just what I think is wrong. Feel free to ignore me or point out how I'm an idiot.

Firstly, the new chassis system. In theory, this is a good idea and I'm in fvaour of it. However, I still think the numbers are very wrong. I still don't see how it's really possible for someone to spend 800 credits and potentially turn out a car they could have gotten for 400 or 500. The overlap between each level is way too big, and so are the ranges for reliability, and max power at the higher amounts. Especially regarding the almost identical possibilities for 800 and 900 credits (not that it affects me too much).

Secondly, the engine system. Specifically three things - how the stats are determined, the relative differences in performance, and the costs - especially whether a factory team in the lower midfield can afford their own engines. I'm basically against changing the system right now, I'd be happier with waiting another season so that we don't get way too many changes at once. My main worry is how the prices are determined - I will not be pleased if I can't afford Holden despite being the works team, especially since they own a fairly big share of the team. (Also, a clarification of the difference between works and factory teams, since only two teams technically build their own engines, HRT and Gillet. No Melrose, MRT don't count.)

Third, the tyre system. Yes, I like the idea of getting people involved, but I don't like the idea that they can set the price to whatever they want and then have upgrade money based on how many teams they get. Face it, if someone knows that HRT are certain to grab Bridgestones, MRT will get Michelin, Alitalia get Pirelli, Jones get Goodyear etc. they'll jack up the price knowing that they have at least one contract certain. As an added bonus, if they make them cheap few teams will have confidence in them, thus no upgrade money, thus they get worse, thus the teams abandon them. My preferred system would be to give each tyre either an equal budget and cost (say, they cost 50-100 credits and each brand has about 200-300, depending on costs of upgrades to spend on them) and let the owners spend their money how they like, but make sure the teams commit to a tyre before upgrading starts.

For the testing rules, I agree mostly but I think we should be able to bring at most 6 drivers to a test if only one or two teams test.

Anyway, that's my slightly more than two cents worth.

Also, I have another question: What is going to happen to pre-quali in Brazil if DGN and HRT don't race?

[SuperAguri]

I know this is not going to be taken seriously but as a suggestion to the waiting list and pay driver budgets, as all teams have a budget why not allow them an overdraft?

This would give lower teams some flexibility to get into the midfield pack and even give midfield teams more chance of cracking the top six.

It would effectively allow teams to gamble that the money they will borrow will benefit them, so Simpson might be allowed to go 200 credits over budget so they can get a better chassis or engine.

However if at the end of the season after prize and tv money is given out, any teams that are in debt that is in excess of what a pay driver can pay back in 8 races go bankrupt, the team is then sold or disolved.

This would give us 90s levels of team ownership and probably make the championship more interesting.

[AndreaModa]

I know this is not going to be taken seriously but as a suggestion to the waiting list and pay driver budgets, as all teams have a budget why not allow them an overdraft?

This would give lower teams some flexibility to get into the midfield pack and even give midfield teams more chance of cracking the top six.

It would effectively allow teams to gamble that the money they will borrow will benefit them, so Simpson might be allowed to go 200 credits over budget so they can get a better chassis or engine.

However if at the end of the season after prize and tv money is given out, any teams that are in debt that is in excess of what a pay driver can pay back in 8 races go bankrupt, the team is then sold or disolved.

This would give us 90s levels of team ownership and probably make the championship more interesting.

You know what, I like the sound of this. Not only does it give more flexibility to the lower teams, and gives them more opportunities, it also encourages good management on their behalf. I think this should be implemented as soon as possible really.

[AdrianSutil]

I know this is not going to be taken seriously but as a suggestion to the waiting list and pay driver budgets, as all teams have a budget why not allow them an overdraft?

This would give lower teams some flexibility to get into the midfield pack and even give midfield teams more chance of cracking the top six.

It would effectively allow teams to gamble that the money they will borrow will benefit them, so Simpson might be allowed to go 200 credits over budget so they can get a better chassis or engine.

However if at the end of the season after prize and tv money is given out, any teams that are in debt that is in excess of what a pay driver can pay back in 8 races go bankrupt, the team is then sold or disolved.

This would give us 90s levels of team ownership and probably make the championship more interesting.

You know what, I like the sound of this. Not only does it give more flexibility to the lower teams, and gives them more opportunities, it also encourages good management on their behalf. I think this should be implemented as soon as possible really.

I think 'bank loans' should be implemented. For example:

Any team may take out a one or two-season long loan up to a maximum of 500 credits (if you can't get a decent chassis or engine with that, you shouldn't be in RWRS). If its a one-season loan you pay back 25% extra at the end of the year (so a total of 375 credits of you take out 300) and 50% if it's a two-season loan (450 for 300). If the team ends up with less than 0 credits after the loan is repaid, they go bust.

[Aerond]

I know this is not going to be taken seriously but as a suggestion to the waiting list and pay driver budgets, as all teams have a budget why not allow them an overdraft?

This would give lower teams some flexibility to get into the midfield pack and even give midfield teams more chance of cracking the top six.

It would effectively allow teams to gamble that the money they will borrow will benefit them, so Simpson might be allowed to go 200 credits over budget so they can get a better chassis or engine.

However if at the end of the season after prize and tv money is given out, any teams that are in debt that is in excess of what a pay driver can pay back in 8 races go bankrupt, the team is then sold or disolved.

This would give us 90s levels of team ownership and probably make the championship more interesting.

I have to think very carefully about this. I have thought about it in the past; but I prefer to see what happens with the new set of rules and how this affects the economics of the teams rather than rushing it into the new season.

[Aerond]

Right, I'm still not sure about some of these rule changes, so once again I'm going to point out just what I think is wrong. Feel free to ignore me or point out how I'm an idiot.

Firstly, the new chassis system. In theory, this is a good idea and I'm in fvaour of it. However, I still think the numbers are very wrong. I still don't see how it's really possible for someone to spend 800 credits and potentially turn out a car they could have gotten for 400 or 500. The overlap between each level is way too big, and so are the ranges for reliability, and max power at the higher amounts. Especially regarding the almost identical possibilities for 800 and 900 credits (not that it affects me too much).

Secondly, the engine system. Specifically three things - how the stats are determined, the relative differences in performance, and the costs - especially whether a factory team in the lower midfield can afford their own engines. I'm basically against changing the system right now, I'd be happier with waiting another season so that we don't get way too many changes at once. My main worry is how the prices are determined - I will not be pleased if I can't afford Holden despite being the works team, especially since they own a fairly big share of the team. (Also, a clarification of the difference between works and factory teams, since only two teams technically build their own engines, HRT and Gillet. No Melrose, MRT don't count.)

Third, the tyre system. Yes, I like the idea of getting people involved, but I don't like the idea that they can set the price to whatever they want and then have upgrade money based on how many teams they get. Face it, if someone knows that HRT are certain to grab Bridgestones, MRT will get Michelin, Alitalia get Pirelli, Jones get Goodyear etc. they'll jack up the price knowing that they have at least one contract certain. As an added bonus, if they make them cheap few teams will have confidence in them, thus no upgrade money, thus they get worse, thus the teams abandon them. My preferred system would be to give each tyre either an equal budget and cost (say, they cost 50-100 credits and each brand has about 200-300, depending on costs of upgrades to spend on them) and let the owners spend their money how they like, but make sure the teams commit to a tyre before upgrading starts.

For the testing rules, I agree mostly but I think we should be able to bring at most 6 drivers to a test if only one or two teams test.

Anyway, that's my slightly more than two cents worth.

Also, I have another question: What is going to happen to pre-quali in Brazil if DGN and HRT don't race?

You are an idiot...





Just joking

Let's go point by point:

Firstly, the new chassis system. In theory, this is a good idea and I'm in fvaour of it. However, I still think the numbers are very wrong.

Well, I'd like to hear a proposal rather than a rant about how wrong it is. I've explained it in the past but I'll explain it again: It happens constantly in motorsport that not the highest budget wins everything; and not the highest budget builds the best car; So I find totally logical that one who spends 400 credits may end up with a better chassis that one who spends 700. It has happened in real life lots of times and it can happen here! Simply the more you spend, the more chances you have to get a better car; but, for example, reliability numbers have been carefully revised; because it can also happen that you spend 800 credits, but get very bad reliability; well, this happens in real life as well (Ferrari 1989 anyone?)

Secondly, the engine system. Specifically three things - how the stats are determined, the relative differences in performance, and the costs - especially whether a factory team in the lower midfield can afford their own engines. I'm basically against changing the system right now, I'd be happier with waiting another season so that we don't get way too many changes at once. My main worry is how the prices are determined - I will not be pleased if I can't afford Holden despite being the works team, especially since they own a fairly big share of the team. (Also, a clarification of the difference between works and factory teams, since only two teams technically build their own engines, HRT and Gillet. No Melrose, MRT don't count.)

There will be no difference between works and factory teams; I've introduced complexity here but to the point I can handle the system.
The stats will be determined by the commission; as well as the costs. I mean, you don't have to fear this; there will be affordable engines, differences between top and worse engines will be lower than now and it will be fair enough. The basics is that current better engines will be the top engines, but these engines will be more expensive to keep and develop than the cheaper ones. Also, top engine developments will be lower than those of the worse engines. You can expect the Holden engine for example, to be somewhere in between. And prices will be fair and according to the engine performance. Also, works and factory teams will get advatanges. I'll give you an example (made up right now, so don't take numbers seriously) of how the engines are going to be presented:

***AUDI (Whatever name)

Qualifying Power: 770
Race Power: 740
Reliability: 6000
Price per season: 600
SPEC 1: (Available inmediately for factory team, 8 races later for other clients) -- +5BHP race Power, -1000 reliability, 100 credits
SPEC 2: (Available after Race 8, 2016 for factory team, 8 races later for other clients) -- +3BHP race Power, -2000 reliability, 140 credits
SPEC 3: (you get when it's available) -- +20BHP Race Power, +1500 reliability, 200 credits (Audi made an effort to increase race power, but this affected reliability).
SPEC 4: -3000 reliability, -15BHP Qualifying, -10BHP Race, 100 credits

***JUDD

Qualifying Power: 680
Race Power: 665
Reliability: 4000
Price per season: 250
SPEC 1: (Availability will be same between all engine manufacturers); +10BHP Qualifying, +20BHP Race, +500 reliability, 130 credits
SPEC 2: +10BHP Qualifying, +5BHP Race, 70 credits
SPEC 3: +20BHP Qualifying, +15BHP Race, +2000 reliability, 150 credits
SPEC 4: -2500 reliability, 75 credits

As you can see, starting stats are way higher for Audi, price is also much higher, as well as the upgrades; Judd however, as a low end manufacturer, managed to get bigger improvements for a lower price. Also, Judd focused their updates more on the Power side to make up the gap to the more powerful engines, while Audi focused more on reliability.

------

Third, the tyre system. Yes, I like the idea of getting people involved, but I don't like the idea that they can set the price to whatever they want and then have upgrade money based on how many teams they get. Face it, if someone knows that HRT are certain to grab Bridgestones, MRT will get Michelin, Alitalia get Pirelli, Jones get Goodyear etc. they'll jack up the price knowing that they have at least one contract certain. As an added bonus, if they make them cheap few teams will have confidence in them, thus no upgrade money, thus they get worse, thus the teams abandon them. My preferred system would be to give each tyre either an equal budget and cost (say, they cost 50-100 credits and each brand has about 200-300, depending on costs of upgrades to spend on them) and let the owners spend their money how they like, but make sure the teams commit to a tyre before upgrading starts.

Mmmmh, well, first, there's a limit of 200 credits on how much tyres can cost. Nobody is telling you to choose bridgestone. If you decided that you will solely use Bridgestone is your problem and if they are expensive, blame the tyre manufacturer. My guess is that tyres will cost more or less the same (around 100 credits), and we won't see too many differences in price.

[Klon]

Speaking of tyres, do we already have someone to take care of Michelin? This series has a "Michelin tradition" and to be honest, I would like to see it continue.

As far as the credit system goes, I would agree with everyone: it would be a worthwhile addition and may cause more action for the guys on the waiting list, but we need to see how 2016 affects the teams' balances - something tells me next season is going to be bloody expensive.

[the Masked Lapwing]

Firstly, the new chassis system. In theory, this is a good idea and I'm in fvaour of it. However, I still think the numbers are very wrong.

Well, I'd like to hear a proposal rather than a rant about how wrong it is. I've explained it in the past but I'll explain it again: It happens constantly in motorsport that not the highest budget wins everything; and not the highest budget builds the best car; So I find totally logical that one who spends 400 credits may end up with a better chassis that one who spends 700. It has happened in real life lots of times and it can happen here! Simply the more you spend, the more chances you have to get a better car; but, for example, reliability numbers have been carefully revised; because it can also happen that you spend 800 credits, but get very bad reliability; well, this happens in real life as well (Ferrari 1989 anyone?)

Not with the price differences here they're not. I'm willing to bet that, let's say McLaren, spend a lot more on designing a new car than Toro Rosso. What do you think the odds are of McLaren building a lower midfield car or Toro Rosso becoming front runners on their current budgets? I can understand significant overlaps in the stats over small price differences, e.g. the upper limit on stats for 300 credit stats are about level with the lower limits for 500 credit ones, while the lowest 300 stats are highest 100 credit ones. For example:
100 -- 660-690 // 1-2 // 1-2 // 13000-16000
200 -- 675-705 // 2-4 // 2-4 // 11500-14500
300 -- 690-720 // 3-5 // 3-5 // 10000-13000
400 -- 705-735 // 4-6 // 4-6 // 8500-11500
500 -- 720-750 // 5-7 // 5-7 // 7000-10000
600 -- 735-765 // 6-8 // 6-8 // 5500-8500
700 -- 750-780 // 7-9 // 7-9 // 4000-7000
800 -- 765-795 // 8-10 // 8-10 // 2500-5500
900 -- 780-810 // 9-10 // 9-10 // 1000-4000
That would be my suggestion. Even spread over each price range (because lets face it, if you only have 200 or 300 credits to spend on a chassis, you really don't deserve to get one similar to a team that spends 600). I'm not saying it's brilliant, but I believe it's more fair.

Secondly, the engine system. Specifically three things - how the stats are determined, the relative differences in performance, and the costs - especially whether a factory team in the lower midfield can afford their own engines. I'm basically against changing the system right now, I'd be happier with waiting another season so that we don't get way too many changes at once. My main worry is how the prices are determined - I will not be pleased if I can't afford Holden despite being the works team, especially since they own a fairly big share of the team. (Also, a clarification of the difference between works and factory teams, since only two teams technically build their own engines, HRT and Gillet. No Melrose, MRT don't count.)

There will be no difference between works and factory teams; I've introduced complexity here but to the point I can handle the system.
The stats will be determined by the commission; as well as the costs. I mean, you don't have to fear this; there will be affordable engines, differences between top and worse engines will be lower than now and it will be fair enough. The basics is that current better engines will be the top engines, but these engines will be more expensive to keep and develop than the cheaper ones. Also, top engine developments will be lower than those of the worse engines. You can expect the Holden engine for example, to be somewhere in between. And prices will be fair and according to the engine performance. Also, works and factory teams will get advatanges. I'll give you an example (made up right now, so don't take numbers seriously) of how the engines are going to be presented:

***AUDI (Whatever name)

Qualifying Power: 770
Race Power: 740
Reliability: 6000
Price per season: 600
SPEC 1: (Available inmediately for factory team, 8 races later for other clients) -- +5BHP race Power, -1000 reliability, 100 credits
SPEC 2: (Available after Race 8, 2016 for factory team, 8 races later for other clients) -- +3BHP race Power, -2000 reliability, 140 credits
SPEC 3: (you get when it's available) -- +20BHP Race Power, +1500 reliability, 200 credits (Audi made an effort to increase race power, but this affected reliability).
SPEC 4: -3000 reliability, -15BHP Qualifying, -10BHP Race, 100 credits

***JUDD

Qualifying Power: 680
Race Power: 665
Reliability: 4000
Price per season: 250
SPEC 1: (Availability will be same between all engine manufacturers); +10BHP Qualifying, +20BHP Race, +500 reliability, 130 credits
SPEC 2: +10BHP Qualifying, +5BHP Race, 70 credits
SPEC 3: +20BHP Qualifying, +15BHP Race, +2000 reliability, 150 credits
SPEC 4: -2500 reliability, 75 credits

As you can see, starting stats are way higher for Audi, price is also much higher, as well as the upgrades; Judd however, as a low end manufacturer, managed to get bigger improvements for a lower price. Also, Judd focused their updates more on the Power side to make up the gap to the more powerful engines, while Audi focused more on reliability.

------
Sounds good, I was mostly worried about Holden engines being too expensive for me to afford, and thus I'd be facing the possibility of a shite car with a good engine or a good car with a shite, rebadged engine.

Third, the tyre system. Yes, I like the idea of getting people involved, but I don't like the idea that they can set the price to whatever they want and then have upgrade money based on how many teams they get. Face it, if someone knows that HRT are certain to grab Bridgestones, MRT will get Michelin, Alitalia get Pirelli, Jones get Goodyear etc. they'll jack up the price knowing that they have at least one contract certain. As an added bonus, if they make them cheap few teams will have confidence in them, thus no upgrade money, thus they get worse, thus the teams abandon them. My preferred system would be to give each tyre either an equal budget and cost (say, they cost 50-100 credits and each brand has about 200-300, depending on costs of upgrades to spend on them) and let the owners spend their money how they like, but make sure the teams commit to a tyre before upgrading starts.

Mmmmh, well, first, there's a limit of 200 credits on how much tyres can cost. Nobody is telling you to choose bridgestone. If you decided that you will solely use Bridgestone is your problem and if they are expensive, blame the tyre manufacturer. My guess is that tyres will cost more or less the same (around 100 credits), and we won't see too many differences in price.

We'll see when we get there, but again this is similar to my concerns with the engines - I have a relationship with Bridgestone, having used the tyres since 2011. Same goes for others, Alitalia/Pirelli especially. And remember that 200 credits might seem small change for DGNgineering and MRT, but it is still a fifth of the average midfield team's budget.

And while I'm at it, I'm against anything that has even the slightest possibility of forcing a member out of the series unwillingly, and am thus don't particularly like the loan proposal (and I'm one of the teams that would consider using it).

[Warren Hughes]

I think I've slightly misunderstood the rules regarding drivers. As in, Macklin is the 2014 F2RWRS champion, but it's going to make arse all difference and he's going to be absolutely frigging woeful because he's spent all year failing to pre-qualify. Whereas the 2015 F2RWRS champ - most likely Kazama - is going to be an absolute beast. Damn and blast.

[pasta_maldonado]

I think I've slightly misunderstood the rules regarding drivers. As in, Macklin is the 2014 F2RWRS champion, but it's going to make arse all difference and he's going to be absolutely frigging woeful because he's spent all year failing to pre-qualify. Whereas the 2015 F2RWRS champ - most likely Kazama - is going to be an absolute beast. Damn and blast.

Which is hardly fair, considering Macklin should have a reasonable level of talent to win F2RWRS in the first place.

[DemocalypseNow]

I think I've slightly misunderstood the rules regarding drivers. As in, Macklin is the 2014 F2RWRS champion, but it's going to make arse all difference and he's going to be absolutely frigging woeful because he's spent all year failing to pre-qualify. Whereas the 2015 F2RWRS champ - most likely Kazama - is going to be an absolute beast. Damn and blast.

Which is hardly fair, considering Macklin should have a reasonable level of talent to win F2RWRS in the first place.

He was no better than Saeed Al Faisal in the same car. That kind of takes his rating down several notches. I mean, look at Jan Magnussen, he bossed junior formulae and then flopped in F1, Macklin being crap is entirely possible. It's Melrose's fault for not taking him in-house instead of retaining Nicolas.

[AndreaModa]

I think I've slightly misunderstood the rules regarding drivers. As in, Macklin is the 2014 F2RWRS champion, but it's going to make arse all difference and he's going to be absolutely frigging woeful because he's spent all year failing to pre-qualify. Whereas the 2015 F2RWRS champ - most likely Kazama - is going to be an absolute beast. Damn and blast.

Which is hardly fair, considering Macklin should have a reasonable level of talent to win F2RWRS in the first place.

I agree with this. He's had a very poor year for Simpson, but that shouldn't detract too much from the fact that he has won the category immediately below F1RWRS. That should definitely count for something.

[Warren Hughes]

I know, I signed him thinking, '2014 F2RWRS champion, that'll count for something' - then I re-read the rules to find that no, no it doesn't. All that counts is a season in a no-hoper-mobile. The fact that Shioya is going to end up a better driver than him illustrates how much of a farce this situation is.

[Aerond]

I know, I signed him thinking, '2014 F2RWRS champion, that'll count for something' - then I re-read the rules to find that no, no it doesn't. All that counts is a season in a no-hoper-mobile. The fact that Shioya is going to end up a better driver than him illustrates how much of a farce this situation is.

Well, it's clear that the new set of rules was going to affect some more than the others. I never expect everyone to be 100% happy. Blame Simpson for giving him a car with a terrible chassis!!! Rosco Vantini, instead, will have good stats next year in equal conditions, and better than those coming from F2

[AndreaModa]

But hold on a second, I've just re-read your original post Aerond, and this is what I believe Macklin should have:

Because he debuted in F1RWRS in 2015, his stats should be calculated from the start of that season, correct? So his results this season aren't counted?

But then even if they are, he should be pushing 4-500+ grip points considering his 2014 F2RWRS season on top of whatever his base stats should be. So that would help him considerably over some of the other drivers in and around pre-qualifying at the moment, and he'll start on a higher base figure because he's already done a year in F1RWRS.

[Warren Hughes]

Well, it's clear that the new set of rules was going to affect some more than the others. I never expect everyone to be 100% happy. Blame Simpson for giving him a car with a terrible chassis!!!

As a new team they were hardly likely to produce a world-beater - or even a car capable of points.

Rosco Vantini, instead, will have good stats next year in equal conditions, and better than those coming from F2

Yeah, entirely as a result of the car he's been in and nothing to do with his actual ability!

But hold on a second, I've just re-read your original post Aerond, and this is what I believe Macklin should have:

Because he debuted in F1RWRS in 2015, his stats should be calculated from the start of that season, correct? So his results this season aren't counted?

But then even if they are, he should be pushing 4-500+ grip points considering his 2014 F2RWRS season on top of whatever his base stats should be. So that would help him considerably over some of the other drivers in and around pre-qualifying at the moment, and he'll start on a higher base figure because he's already done a year in F1RWRS.

As far as I understand the rules, driver stats get recalculated at the start of every year.

[AndreaModa]

But hold on a second, I've just re-read your original post Aerond, and this is what I believe Macklin should have:

Because he debuted in F1RWRS in 2015, his stats should be calculated from the start of that season, correct? So his results this season aren't counted?

But then even if they are, he should be pushing 4-500+ grip points considering his 2014 F2RWRS season on top of whatever his base stats should be. So that would help him considerably over some of the other drivers in and around pre-qualifying at the moment, and he'll start on a higher base figure because he's already done a year in F1RWRS.

As far as I understand the rules, driver stats get recalculated at the start of every year.

Right, so even though Macklin has a string of DNPQs, that won't take away from the fact he had a dominant 2014 surely?

[Warren Hughes]

I don't think that's how it works, but

I'm going to have to wait till I get home and read the rules more closely.

[TomWazzleshaw]

I don't think that's how it works, but

I'm going to have to wait till I get home and read the rules more closely.

Don't look at me for answers because my limited expertise stops at the new driver rules for next year.

[TomWazzleshaw]

The Mad Uncle has arrived with an idea:

Having had a proper look at how yesterday's driver stats simulation went, I devised a new system of doing stats for existing F1RWRS drivers. Basically, I took the system for determining stats for new drivers moving up into the F1RWRS and expanded it from there as seen below:

F1RWRS drivers:
RACE
+10 per race win
+6 per podium
+4 per points finish
+2 per race start
QUALIFYING
+10 per pole position
+5 per top 10 start
+2 per race start
+1 per pre-q pass (i.e. the team makes it past Pre-Q into qualifying itself)

Because of the fact the F1RWRS has been around longer than any of the categories below it, I've removed bonuses for championship positions. Retaining the base value of 14000, let's calculate the race stats three drivers under this new proposed system; Mark Dagnall, Daniel Melrose and David Neuberg:

Mark Dagnall
Base: 14000
Race Starts: 48x2 = 96
Points Finishes: 0
Podium Finishes: 6x6 = 36
Race Wins: 19x10 = 190
TOTAL: 14322

Daniel Melrose
Base: 14000
Race Starts: 68x2 = 136
Points Finishes: 17x4 = 68
Podiums: 12x6 = 72
Race Wins: 2x10 = 20
TOTAL: 14296

David Neuberg
Base: 14000
Race Stats: 17x2 = 34
Points Finishes: 0
Podiums: 3x6 = 18
Race Wins: 0
TOTAL: 14052

That is fairly straightforward but now is the really interesting bit. As all incoming drivers get a RNG of +/-100 before their make their debut, I adopted that idea as well, but with a larger starting point of +/-150. Now, for every year a driver has driven in the F1RWRS, that range is reduced by 10 (So for Dagnall it'll be +/-120, Melrose +/-90 and Neuberg +/-130). On top of that, the range will be adjusted depending on what teams they've driven for using the following table and a imaginary number line:

Team won the constructors title: Range is shifted 25 to the left
Team finishes between 2nd and 5th in the constructors title: Range is shifted 10 to the left
Team finishes between 6th and 10th in the constructors title: Range is left unchanged
Team finishes between 11th and 15th in the constructors title: Range is shifted 10 to the right
Team finishes outside the top 15 in the constructors title: Range is shifted 25 to the right.

So, for each of the three drivers in question, the range will look like this:

Mark Dagnall
Original Range: +/-120
2013 Team: Dagnall Engineering (1st in title, new range +95/-145)
2014 Team: DGNgineering (1st in title, new range +70/-170)
2015 Teams: DGNgineering (3rd in title, new range +60/-180), MRT (1st in title, new range +35/-205)
Final range: +35/-205

Daniel Melrose
Original Range: +/-90
2010 Team: JLD Motorsport (6th in title, new range +/-90)
2011 Team: JLD Motorsport (2nd in title, new range +80/-100)
2012 Team: Melrose Racing Team (6th in title, new range +80/-100)
2013 Teams: ArrowTech (5th in title, new range +70/-110), Jones Racing (4th in title, new range +60/-120)
2014 Team: Jones Racing (5th in title, new range +50/-130)
2015 Teams: Simpson Motorsport (18th in title, new range +75/-105), Holden Racing Team (13th in title, new range +85/-95)
Final Range: +85/-95

David Neuberg
Original Range: +/-130
2014 Team: Mitie Aviation Racing (17th in title, new range +155/-105)
2015 Teams: Kingfisher Racing (11th in title, new range +165/-95), Melrose Racing Team (1st in title, new range +140/-120)
Final Range: +140/-120

It's by no means a perfect system as it takes quite a lot of calculation but it's probably the most fair system I can come up with for the time being.

[the Masked Lapwing]

I think it's a brilliant idea.

Of course, it requires effort so Aerond will never use it, but it's good to know that people can come up with good systems from time to time.

[AndreaModa]

Yeah that does look nicely balanced, and really probably isn't that much more complicated than the current system Aerond has proposed. Either way calculating each driver's stats is going to take ages, so if it's going to be done, at least try and do it properly, or as best we can.

I'd support this replacing the current proposal from Aerond.

[Klon]

While I don't mind the proposed system, this one looks very good as well. If we can get a majority (and to a point aerond) behind it, I will most certainly not mind.

[Salamander]

This looks good to me.

[Ataxia]

I really like that! I think it looks pretty fair altogether; the one thing I wonder about is stat depreciation as a driver moves into the latter half of his 30s.

[pasta_maldonado]

I agree that Wizzie's proposal is a more accurate way of calculating driver stats. It actually makes more sense to me which is a bonus

[SuperAguri]

Wizzie system sounds good but I do have a few reservations and suggestions.

Drivers from junior formula, how about we use Wizzies caluculation system but use a percentage? For example currently we have

F1RWRS
RACE
+10 per race win
+6 per podium
[...]

How about F2RWRS have say 60% of this, so it would be...

+6 per race win
+3.6 per podium (then rounded)
etc

For F3RWRS have say 40% of this, so it would be...

+4 per race win
+2.4 per podium
etc...

Other canon series we could work out a percentage and this way it does mean that F2RWRS champions do get some talent skills. Otherwise there does not seem to any point to signing talent from F2RWRS...

Reservations as a pervious skilled drivers have a poor season in one car will suffer compared to crap drivers in decent teams.

[Aerond]

I see one very big problem with Wizzie's proposal; The numbers he proposed are so slim, that there'll be almost no differences between drivers. It won't matter much whether you have in your team Pippa Mann or Saeed Al Faisal, really ... It also forgets completely about Pay Drivers...

[AndreaModa]

I see one very big problem with Wizzie's proposal; The numbers he proposed are so slim, that there'll be almost no differences between drivers. It won't matter much whether you have in your team Pippa Mann or Saeed Al Faisal, really ... It also forgets completely about Pay Drivers...

Again, an excellent point. After all, we do ultimately want the drivers to be rewarded for their success, otherwise there's no point to any of this.

I think, at the end of the day, I'm happy with whatever is agreed upon. We all have to remember not to get too deep with all of this, it is after all just a bit of fun, and if everyone starts taking it too seriously (I'm not suggesting that is the case currently) then all the fun will get knocked out of it.

[TomWazzleshaw]

I see one very big problem with Wizzie's proposal; The numbers he proposed are so slim, that there'll be almost no differences between drivers. It won't matter much whether you have in your team Pippa Mann or Saeed Al Faisal, really ... It also forgets completely about Pay Drivers...

That can be solved by increasing the numbers from 10, 6 and 4 to 15, 10 and 5 respectively. And as far as paydrivers go, we can just increase the range of the RNG for paydrivers to compensate for that.

[Aerond]

I see another thing here, I think wizzie's system is unnecesarily punishing drivers for their success...
I'm sorry but I don't see how this solves anything, specially when things aren't broken yet.

[TomWazzleshaw]

I see another thing here, I think wizzie's system is unnecesarily punishing drivers for their success...
I'm sorry but I don't see how this solves anything, specially when things aren't broken yet.

And how is Melrose getting more points in 2010 where he did sod all than for 2011 and 2012 combined any better?

[Aerond]

I see another thing here, I think wizzie's system is unnecesarily punishing drivers for their success...
I'm sorry but I don't see how this solves anything, specially when things aren't broken yet.

And how is Melrose getting more points in 2010 where he did sod all than for 2011 and 2012 combined any better?

You can clearly see when comparing Dagnall to Neuberg final ranges... Dagnall is actually being punished for winning under your proposal.

[RonDenisDeletraz]

I see another thing here, I think wizzie's system is unnecesarily punishing drivers for their success...
I'm sorry but I don't see how this solves anything, specially when things aren't broken yet.

It solves how biased the system is to those at the front

[TomWazzleshaw]

I see another thing here, I think wizzie's system is unnecesarily punishing drivers for their success...
I'm sorry but I don't see how this solves anything, specially when things aren't broken yet.

And how is Melrose getting more points in 2010 where he did sod all than for 2011 and 2012 combined any better?

You can clearly see when comparing Dagnall to Neuberg final ranges... Dagnall is actually being punished for winning under your proposal.

But he's winning because he has a good car to start with. We all know how good the likes of Neuberg, Mignolet and Plaza are but they haven't had enough opportunities to show it because they've been hampered with second-rate machinery (Although how good the 2015 DGN car is depends on who you ask but that's a story for another day). What this system tries to do is account for that by putting the emphasis back on the inherent talent of drivers, rather than the quality of the machinery they have to work with.

[the Masked Lapwing]

I see another thing here, I think wizzie's system is unnecesarily punishing drivers for their success...
I'm sorry but I don't see how this solves anything, specially when things aren't broken yet.

And how is Melrose getting more points in 2010 where he did sod all than for 2011 and 2012 combined any better?

You can clearly see when comparing Dagnall to Neuberg final ranges... Dagnall is actually being punished for winning under your proposal.

No, he's punished for having his career handed to him on a plate. Wizzie's system solves the problem of drivers who've spent a year or two in poor machinery or a year or two in brilliant cars and brings them back to the rest, plus it keeps the RNG that you are so determined must be involved. It's only drivers who spend entire careers in front running cars who get punished, and Dagnall is the only one to suffer. Every other driver from the top teams, whether it's Rhys Davies, Kay Lon, Pippa Mann or Nicolas Steele, have all spent time in the midfield, or mired in pre-quali.

[Aerond]

I see another thing here, I think wizzie's system is unnecesarily punishing drivers for their success...
I'm sorry but I don't see how this solves anything, specially when things aren't broken yet.

It solves how biased the system is to those at the front

I already read your following comment which you deleted. It's easy, if you're not happy, you're free to go

[the Masked Lapwing]

I see another thing here, I think wizzie's system is unnecesarily punishing drivers for their success...
I'm sorry but I don't see how this solves anything, specially when things aren't broken yet.

It solves how biased the system is to those at the front

I already read your following comment which you deleted. It's easy, if you're not happy, you're free to go

He had a point though, the only one who wanted DAGNALLWINSLOL is you.

[Aerond]

No, he's punished for having his career handed to him on a plate. Wizzie's system solves the problem of drivers who've spent a year or two in poor machinery or a year or two in brilliant cars and brings them back to the rest, plus it keeps the RNG that you are so determined must be involved. It's only drivers who spend entire careers in front running cars who get punished, and Dagnall is the only one to suffer. Every other driver from the top teams, whether it's Rhys Davies, Kay Lon, Pippa Mann or Nicolas Steele, have all spent time in the midfield, or mired in pre-quali.

It solves some problems but it creates others. I'm not buying into a system which only rewards experienced drivers who spent most of their careers at midfield teams and punishes both winning drivers (who get punished for winning) and unexperienced drivers (who can't earn enough points through results to make a difference). Oh, and there's some contradictions with your previous demands (which were sattisfied btw) and wizzie's system:
1st -- It forgets completely about credits already spent on drivers.
2nd -- It only awards consistent but unespectacular results. Go on to win the championship and you're bound to fail in the following season.