Grand Prix Rejects

As a majority vote has been attained with respect to all three proposals, voting will now close accordingly, with TCBY's Alt-BTCC and Klon's '98-'09 F1 series ratified as recognized ASMF championships, and F1RGP2 officially struck from the ASMF.

The proceeding discussion/proposal window will be deferred until after the Council Elections officially close; that is, until 31st May, at 18:00 UTC.

Not sure if I should post here or on the new thread, but considering the ruling is for '98-'09 season, are we going to struck out the previously established alternate 1999, 2000 and 2006-2009 seasons as well?

In that case, I urge everyone that has drivers in F1RGP2C and/or old F1 canon to rewrite their driver histories now. (I can say my Japanese F1RGP2C racers raced in JGTC instead, for instance.)

FMecha wrote:Not sure if I should post here or on the new thread, but considering the ruling is for '98-'09 season, are we going to struck out the previously established alternate 1999, 2000 and 2006-2009 seasons as well?

In that case, I urge everyone that has drivers in F1RGP2C and/or old F1 canon to rewrite their driver histories now. (I can say my Japanese F1RGP2C racers raced in JGTC instead, for instance.)

In a short answer, yes. For those wuith F1RGP2C drivers, it may be possible to make them available for hire in new canon F1 if you speak to Klon.

With the elections now over, the new council may begin their work at 1st June 00:00 UTC.

As we now have a fully-functioning democratically elected body with a substantial amount of members, I'll drop my authority to alter the membership structure or voting rules. Any further changes to these will be voted upon by the council itself.

Also, as the council cannot act properly without a chairman, I propose that kevinbotz continues in that role.

Nuppiz wrote:Also, as the council cannot act properly without a chairman, I propose that kevinbotz continues in that role.

Seconded.

I second it.

At this point it's only symbolic, but I do not accept the motion. I do not tender an alternative choice.

The only reason I do so is the general level of discourse within this thread has been too verbose for encouraging discussion participating from those outside the voting panel. If it was more accessible, perhaps we'd have less problems with issues arising after-the-fact with votes on changes to be made?

DemocalypseNow wrote:At this point it's only symbolic, but I do not accept the motion. I do not tender an alternative choice.

The only reason I do so is the general level of discourse within this thread has been too verbose for encouraging discussion participating from those outside the voting panel. If it was more accessible, perhaps we'd have less problems with issues arising after-the-fact with votes on changes to be made?

For what it's worth, I'll continue to attempt to simplify my wording in regard to proposals and discussions within this thread. I'd further like to make clear that, should anybody find one of my proposals or discussion responses difficult to parse, I'd be more than happy to clarify in detail.

I'll proceed to abstain on this motion.

kevinbotz wrote:For what it's worth, I'll continue to attempt to simplify my wording in regard to proposals and discussions within this thread. I'd further like to make clear that, should anybody find one of my proposals or discussion responses difficult to parse, I'd be more than happy to clarify in detail.

I'll proceed to abstain on this motion.

Alternatively, you could not indulge biscione's anti-intellectualism. Online dictionaries are a thing nowadays, so you can look up the meaning of more verbose terms.

There is no reason for you to dumb yourself down just so slower people can keep up. It is possible to ask for meaning, after all.

Klon wrote:

kevinbotz wrote:For what it's worth, I'll continue to attempt to simplify my wording in regard to proposals and discussions within this thread. I'd further like to make clear that, should anybody find one of my proposals or discussion responses difficult to parse, I'd be more than happy to clarify in detail.

I'll proceed to abstain on this motion.

Alternatively, you could not indulge biscione's anti-intellectualism. Online dictionaries are a thing nowadays, so you can look up the meaning of more verbose terms.

There is no reason for you to dumb yourself down just so slower people can keep up. It is possible to ask for meaning, after all.

Not the point I was making at all.

To use language which is not barebones in nature, and to be verbose, are two separate concepts. You're mistaking my complaint of the verbosity of posts as one of the word choice.

It's important that you stick to critical analysis of the point which is actually being made, rather than deciding to apply a different meaning to it and criticise that instead.

And this is why people actively voted for a potato......

The discussion/proposal window is now open, and will remain open until 26 June, 2017.

I propose that all discussion regarding the verbosity of kevinbotz's statements is banned, as it is counter-productive and besides the point.

Given that no substantive proposals are presently outstanding, the discussion/proposal cycle will be extended to July 24th, 2017.

An issue I would raise - not a big thing, but one we should tackle sooner or later. How should we take IPC's demise into account in canon? Should we
- Say the promoter has run into financial troubles and was forced to cancel the last eight rounds?
- Cancel the last 8 rounds from the schedule and do as they had never been planned to begin with?

I'd be inclined towards the first option, if only as it corresponds with the circumstances leading up to IPC's abrupt demise, and offers a fairly plausible explanation for it.

Yeah, the first option gives a pretty good closure to the series. The split from AutoReject could be used as a major factor in the bankrupcy.

I've put this off for far too long, and there's certainly been a sufficient amount of time elapsed since the last proposal.

We'll proceed to vote on the single outstanding proposal, that pertaining to the resolution of the IPC question, wherein just one scheme will be selected out of the options as proposed:

1. Say the promoter has run into financial troubles and was forced to cancel the last eight rounds.

2. Cancel the last 8 rounds from the schedule and do as they had never been planned to begin with.

3. Neither proposed resolution is satisfactory and further discussion on the matter is necessary in the next window.

I'll kick off voting.

IPC Resolution: #1

Make that two votes for solution number one.

I shall vote for solution number 1

I shall add another vote for solution number 1.

One vote for #2

#1 Makes the most sense.

Solution #1 has reached the absolute majority necessary and passes accordingly.

The discussion/proposal window is once more open, and will remain open until 7 October, 2017.

One thing that could be worth making a discussion about, is regarding the rules being set out in all of the F4 series. Now, upon earlier discussion in the F3 thread (this had almost derailed the thread unnecessarily), I'd thought I bring it over here for it to be discussed further.

I am thinking that all F4 Series should implement the rules so that it can follow the same rules as each other (A few tweaks will be allowed for regional reasons) This is because I can understand that some of the series have different rules, or at least the rules stated differently compared to other series. One example would be the American F4 in which the rules appear to state of barring any driver that have competed in higher levels (F3, F2 etc). persumably no matter if they are very inexperienced or didn't produce any good results. This would compare the difference with the Anglo Irish F4 were (According to Simtek as stated in the F3 thread) anyone bar a few drivers including champions etc, are eligible to race. One other example in which TCBY is already aware of, the age of drivers that would be allowed in the series (ages 15-18) which I believed it is a little too short.

So I thought it would be rather fairer if all series do follow the same rules such as the choice of drivers entering, so i'll list down few of the following rulings I think all F4 series should include:

1). Drivers should be aged between 14-20 unless exempted otherwise.
2). The use of the F4 Penalty Points System: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... =634347005
3). Drivers under 21 that have competed in higher levels than F4 would still be allowed to enter, at the owner's discretion (If they are inexperienced or did not produce good enough results in those series at the time).

I wouldn't mind seeing a greater convergence in terms of rulemaking among the five F4 series, but there are some issues with the proposals outlined:

1. I am opposed to an upper age limit. The mininum age isn't a problem as there is now a blanket ban on any driver under the age of 15 across all canon series, but a maximum age of 20 would put the gentleman's class in Italian F4 in jeopardy, and AIF4's Collin Daley Jr. (who will turn 23 in 2020) would be without a chance of driving, assuming Miguel isn't trying to give him a full F3 Americas season on the back of his win in Tropico (though to be honest, I'm not sure how he won that in the first place). The vast majority of F4 drivers in all series are teenagers anyway, and I feel a maximum age would be a bit much considering about 95% of all F4 drivers have so far been well under it.

2. The F4 penalty point system, as far as I know, is in use in all F4 series already, certainly Britain & Ireland, Italy, Asia and South America. The 2019 North American season, which would be the first season of that series to use the penalty point system, just hasn't started yet.

3. I think this probably is the best solution with regards to more experienced drivers racing at the bottom and that seems to be how it's done in real life (the only recent example I know of being Piquet Jr's attempt to race at Pau being blocked). The way I've been handling it is giving more unfavorable RNG odds to the few "experienced" drivers that have been nominated by AIF4 teams in the past. Really, it's a case-by-case basis thing. If someone nominates Lewis Hamilton as a driver they're obviously taking the piss. If they enter Joey Mawson I'd struggle to believe he's not getting any offers elsewhere and tell the entrant to change the bid. But if they enter Alex Smith the case can be made that he simply wasn't ready for the leap to F3 and could use more time in an F4 car.

The only other real "issue" I can find is in the race format. Four of the five F4 championships follow the double header race format, the exception being the Italian series, which splits the weekend into two heats and a final. However, if I'm not mistaken the OOC reason Italian F4 is split into heats is because rFactor wouldn't be able to handle all of the cars racing at once, so having it conform with the others would cause more problems than it would solve.

Also, the points system is the same in every series... except in South America where they award points for fastest lap.

Simtek Wrote:
1.The mininum age isn't a problem as there is now a blanket ban on any driver under the age of 15 across all canon series.

Speaking of that, TCBY did actually let me off with having a 14 year old Kurumi Fujibayashi race in Asian F4, i'm not sure if it was before the ban took place but either way he was completely unaware that Fujibayashi would be 14 and it was only until I asked him if her birthdate was OK. If it was to be after the ban, I will have to prepare to change her birthdate a year older to avoid further action.

Not really sure where else to put this so here will do, given the subject was brought up earlier.

F4 series owners,

I've noticed a lot of manual number input into the spreadsheet rather than using the formulas to do the heavy lifting. This has led to a couple of errors that I've corrected by pasting the formulas in.

I've added some blank rows, but for reference, these are the formulas you need to use in the Total sheet within the book;

ACTIVE POINTS - =sumif(Driver,B(X),Points) - replace (X) with the row number in which the formula is present e.g. if you are typing into cell C27, then your formula would be =sumif(Driver,B27,Points)

RACE BAN - =if(ActivePoints>=20,"Yes","No") - No dynamic references here. Copy verbatim.

SEASON BAN - =if(ActivePoints>=40,"Yes","No") - No dynamic references here. Copy verbatim.

With the confirmed death of AutoReject Nippon, I have decided to table a automated series for Super Formula.

Details on the proposal can be found here: https://pastebin.com/RiQfU0HN

Any flaws/suggestions for the proposal are very much welcomed.

Normal32 wrote:With the confirmed death of AutoReject Nippon, I have decided to table a automated series for Super Formula.

Details on the proposal can be found here: https://pastebin.com/RiQfU0HN

Any flaws/suggestions for the proposal are very much welcomed.

We should look into some established fictional Japanese teams like Pretty Cure Luxray Engineering taking place of lesser real-life teams such as KC Motorgroup and Real Racing.

Surely (if possible) it would make most sense to preserve the existing 2019 entry list for the new series, as that would save a considerable amount of time in starting the series, as team/driver lineups are mostly ready and documented? For instance, the entry of my team BORC into the series is fairly integral to its backstory, and would require retconning some amount of it on the wiki as well as leaving a Japan-based team with no current entries in Asian series (I obviously can't enter Asian F4, and PES seems mostly dead).

I would be willing to run FNippon to something close to the original plan if requested, however- I have all bar one of the tracks already loaded into GP2 for Asian F4, and have a gap in my schedule from when Virtual BTCC 2010 ends (hopefully very soon) to when Asian F4 and altBTCC 2020 start, and with Asian F4 being a support series, it would create a decent hierachy. It would however, be somewhat slower run than Normal32's QuickSim proposal, and I do see that time is of the essence.

Is it actually something we need though?

I intend on passing AR2.0 over at the end of the season, since I'm at the point where I can't commit to running two series. While I don't want to speak for Nuppiz, I'm aware that he's not exactly feeling motivated to do AR3.5 for another year after - although he may feel differently.

So I think it's far more worthwhile that we make sure the current ladders are sustainable rather than essentially creating another one. Sure, Nippon's existed in some capacity for a little while, but it's been rather more in a supplementary capacity.

Obviously if it's no problem for either of you then a Quick Sim Nippon series can work, but I think it's important to consolidate what's already here.

This Could Be You wrote:Surely (if possible) it would make most sense to preserve the existing 2019 entry list for the new series, as that would save a considerable amount of time in starting the series, as team/driver lineups are mostly ready and documented? For instance, the entry of my team BORC into the series is fairly integral to its backstory, and would require retconning some amount of it on the wiki as well as leaving a Japan-based team with no current entries in Asian series (I obviously can't enter Asian F4, and PES seems mostly dead).

Yeah, no. AR Nippon, while it did have it's moments was, to be brutally honest, a complete nonsensical mess. The fact that the grids and series name were never consistent are the most obvious elements. Not to mention the fact that many prominent Japanese teams that would realistically compete in basically all Japanese series were nowhere to be seen (just off the top of my head, Cerumo and TOM'S). Also, PES is not dead; last time I heard about it, RHeart was making some AI tweaks.

Ataxia wrote:Is it actually something we need though?

I intend on passing AR2.0 over at the end of the season, since I'm at the point where I can't commit to running two series. While I don't want to speak for Nuppiz, I'm aware that he's not exactly feeling motivated to do AR3.5 for another year after - although he may feel differently.

So I think it's far more worthwhile that we make sure the current ladders are sustainable rather than essentially creating another one. Sure, Nippon's existed in some capacity for a little while, but it's been rather more in a supplementary capacity.

Obviously if it's no problem for either of you then a Quick Sim Nippon series can work, but I think it's important to consolidate what's already here.

While I do definitely agree that we need to sustain the ladders here, in here, there are already Japanese series laid out, and not having Super Formula is a bit of non-sense.

PES (essentially Super GT), AF3. and AF4 are already all in place, so it makes all the more sense to have a Super Formula series in. Not to mention these series contains many of the SF teams that have their own junior squads, like TOM'S, Nakajima, Dandelion and so on. I hope you can see where I am coming with this.

However, that does not make your point invalid about consolidating the AR ladder; I highly suggest that in either this or future cycles, the Council looks at ways to remedy these issues. I've heard Biscione was interested in AR2.0 a while back, for example.

This does highlight another issue. That their is just not many people here. Not everyone is able to run series we all have life's and its not like we are getting new blood in to feel the void when people leave or just stop running series. We have 3 single seat ladders the AR ladder may not exist next year and now a 4th one seems to want to be added if we cant sustain what we have got there is no point in adding more.
Just because we have lower tiers doesn't necessarily mean we need higher ones. We have a British F4 doesnt mean we need a British F3 and a British F1 above it. Likewise does F5000 need a F2500 and a F1125 below it.

peteroli34 wrote:Just because we have lower tiers doesn't necessarily mean we need higher ones. We have a British F4 doesnt mean we need a British F3 and a British F1 above it. Likewise does F5000 need a F2500 and a F1125 below it.

Except we already have all the pieces.

F5000 is a stand-alone thing. Adding a F3 series below it would be redundant; more even if it is a F4 series. However, all I am trying to do here is take over the spot of a series, which the series owner couldn't run, so I decided to take over it. Said series had F4 and F3 below it already, as well as a GT series on the same level. It also had many SF teams in their ranks like I have already mentioned. This isn't some clean slate I am working with; all the cards are already in place, and I am adding the piece needed to hold it all. Same goes for the AIF4 analogy.

I am not creating a new ladder by doing this; I am merely replacing a dead series with a new series in the exact same vein, which was in the same level.

Normal32 wrote:
However, that does not make your point invalid about consolidating the AR ladder; I highly suggest that in either this or future cycles, the Council looks at ways to remedy these issues. I've heard Biscione was interested in AR2.0 a while back, for example.

Yes, but Indy Lights and Italian F4 haven't moved forward in a while, so I wouldn't want to burden him with more stuff to run.

It'd be good if a few more people stepped up to running series; although the uptake for F4-level series was good, we can always use more hands to steady the ship.

Normal32 wrote:

This Could Be You wrote:Surely (if possible) it would make most sense to preserve the existing 2019 entry list for the new series, as that would save a considerable amount of time in starting the series, as team/driver lineups are mostly ready and documented? For instance, the entry of my team BORC into the series is fairly integral to its backstory, and would require retconning some amount of it on the wiki as well as leaving a Japan-based team with no current entries in Asian series (I obviously can't enter Asian F4, and PES seems mostly dead).

Yeah, no. AR Nippon, while it did have it's moments was, to be brutally honest, a complete nonsensical mess. The fact that the grids and series name were never consistent are the most obvious elements. Not to mention the fact that many prominent Japanese teams that would realistically compete in basically all Japanese series were nowhere to be seen (just off the top of my head, Cerumo and TOM'S). Also, PES is not dead; last time I heard about it, RHeart was making some AI tweaks.

A compromise should be found here - while a bulk of RL teams wouldn't be bad, I agree with TCBY in that at least those teams which have built/are building an established presence in the PES/AF3/AF4 ladder should be represented. I mean, it's our canon.

Ataxia wrote:Is it actually something we need though?

I intend on passing AR2.0 over at the end of the season, since I'm at the point where I can't commit to running two series. While I don't want to speak for Nuppiz, I'm aware that he's not exactly feeling motivated to do AR3.5 for another year after - although he may feel differently.

So I think it's far more worthwhile that we make sure the current ladders are sustainable rather than essentially creating another one. Sure, Nippon's existed in some capacity for a little while, but it's been rather more in a supplementary capacity.

Obviously if it's no problem for either of you then a Quick Sim Nippon series can work, but I think it's important to consolidate what's already here.

I have to be honest here. You guys are doing great jobs in running series...sometimes even too great. Having quality standars is necessary, and everyone of us likes "fancy perks". Yet, some series set the bar so high that running them as they are may become more of a burden than anything else.

novitopoli wrote:A compromise should be found here - while a bulk of RL teams wouldn't be bad, I agree with TCBY in that at least those teams which have built/are building an established presence in the PES/AF3/AF4 ladder should be represented. I mean, it's our canon.

Which is why I added Kamaha and Theodore on the entry list.