F1Rejects.com

by **tommykl** » 22 Apr 2012, 15:41

To level the playing field and make it unpredictable, without shaking up the order too much to keep it a bit more realistic, I propose, without changing the amount of credits given to new teams or the credit system (the one for 2015, of course), an order to pick chassis and engine.

It would go something like this:
Aerond would show the list of chassis and engine a few days before opening the window.
Aerond opens the window, but only for the top five/ten teams in the previous year's championship, that way the order could potentially change heavily between them. A few days later, their choices must be locked and the window opens to the next five/ten teams in the championship where, if they're smart enough and can pick a good combination, they can have the opportunity to leapfrog higher placed teams, with the new teams picking last. This is to keep, again, some realism, because when a team is new to a racing series, they usually spend a year towards the back learning the ropes before making their way up the field, with the occasional team hitting the right spot with their car, so a good choice of chassis and engine that wasn't picked by another team could potentially put them right in the midfield, without it being a guarantee or even a probability.

What do you guys think?

(by the way, I plan to keep the same chassis and engine next year, again)

by **Shizuka** » 22 Apr 2012, 15:51

That sounds good to me.

by **AdrianSutil** » 22 Apr 2012, 16:01

I also support this. I haven't got a problem with the best teams staying at the top and those in pre-qualifying staying where they are, just as long as a new team doesn't pick up a brilliant combo... This system would stop that.

I'm keeping either my engine or chassis for next year too.

Edit: It should be like the GPM2 game, where each member takes it in turn to pick their engine and chassis from the list.

Website · by **Wizzie** » 22 Apr 2012, 16:44

AdrianSutil wrote:I also support this. I haven't got a problem with the best teams staying at the top and those in pre-qualifying staying where they are, just as long as a new team doesn't pick up a brilliant combo... This system would stop that.

I'm keeping either my engine or chassis for next year too.

Edit: It should be like the GPM2 game, where each member takes it in turn to pick their engine and chassis from the list.

Maybe we should keep the three group system (Remaining Top 10 teams, remaining bottom 10, new teams) but have Aerond have a random draw to decide the order between those three groups

Seriously though I like the idea as a theory but MRT will wait for counter arguments before making a formal agreement.

by **the Masked Lapwing** » 22 Apr 2012, 17:03

As long as new teams pick last, although I'm not in favour otherwise, as I'm still smarting from not getting Webber in the GPM2 game. I already have a plan for next season' chassis/engine combo for HRT, and if I get stuck picking last, I will be really annoyed.

Website · by **Wizzie** » 22 Apr 2012, 17:10

the Masked Lapwing wrote:I already have a plan for next season' chassis/engine combo for HRT, and if I get stuck picking last, I will be really annoyed.

Is it the same plan that drove CR, Prospec and Calinetic into the ground last season? :lol:

by **AdrianSutil** » 22 Apr 2012, 17:11

Yeah do it so groups of teams at a time get to choose. New teams will have to go last otherwise what's the point to this exercise :lol:

Depends what Aerond thinks but it's the best idea so far IMO.

by **the Masked Lapwing** » 22 Apr 2012, 17:27

AdrianSutil wrote:Yeah do it so groups of teams at a time get to choose. New teams will have to go last otherwise what's the point to this exercise

Depends what Aerond thinks but it's the best idea so far IMO.

But the thing with the groups is you are going to get someone (i.e. me) unhappy that they'll (I'll) likely be picking at the same time as teams stuck in PQ because their respective teams (HRT) were crap, but not crap enough for PQ (you see how HRT got out as soon as they were eligible for the PQ Cup? Deliberate. Sort of.)

(I know, it's my fault for choosing a chassis that spent all of last season in pre-quali anyway, but I thought it would be better than it was. At least with the engine. It shouldn't have been this unreliable anyway.)

by **Aerond** » 22 Apr 2012, 18:15

It´s nothing that I specially like, I don´t seriously think that a team right now with 1000 credits will go to the top of the game, just because;
A) --- Top teams have developed drivers and engines
B) --- Top teams have already chosen the best possible combinations.

BUT, from a logistical point of view, is VERY much easier for me to follow the system you´re proposing. It would also be a little bit more realistic, because real life manufacturers won´t easily trust a new team as much as they trust an established team.

Website · by **Wizzie** » 22 Apr 2012, 18:20

Aerond wrote:B) --- MRT have already chosen the best possible combination.

Fixed

by **the Masked Lapwing** » 22 Apr 2012, 18:21

Wizzie wrote:
Aerond wrote:B) --- MRT have already chosen the best possible combination.

Fixed

Wrapped up those championships yet? :lol:

Website · by **Wizzie** » 22 Apr 2012, 18:23

the Masked Lapwing wrote:
Wizzie wrote:
Aerond wrote:B) --- MRT have already chosen the best possible combination.

Fixed

Wrapped up those championships yet?

Shut up. It's a work in progress :lol:

by **MinardiFan95** » 22 Apr 2012, 18:48

Dave Simpson wrote:I definitely don't support the 750cr budget cap for new teams, it's absolutely ludicrous given that teams that entered in the last two years have started off with 1000 cr, and some teams have already earned more than the new teams budget cap from their success in one season, or nearly reached that cap by using two pay drivers. All this budget cap will do is add a few more frustrated non-qualifying teams to the F1RWRS that will probably not last the season due to a combination of lack of interest and lack of sponsorship.

by **JeremyMcClean** » 23 Apr 2012, 00:20

Andrea Acuri wrote:I think the new team budget cap is a ludicrous idea. It will keep new teams down the order while the frontrunners keep dominating. I understand that we're one the teams that "exploited" this rule, but we got where we are today due to hard work and determination. Limiting teams on how much they can spend is completely detrimental to developing technological innovations in this league. I think that putting on budget caps will deter designers from innovating the sport.

by **Stramala** » 23 Apr 2012, 00:39

Alasdair Lindsay wrote:Shut up and give me some damn money. Non mi rompere i coglioni...

by **AndreaModa** » 23 Apr 2012, 03:55

Right, okay so by the looks of things we have a fairly mixed view on switching the 1000 credits budget for new teams to 750. I'm not happy about it going ahead unless we have the support of at the very least the new teams coming in, and we don't have that, so unless someone desperately wants to see it happen, we'll drop that proposal. It was only a suggestion from myself in the first place anyway.

Secondly I like the idea of grouping the teams together when picking chassis and engines, it adds some realism, and ensures that we keep things as people want it, whilst still allowing clever choices and smart thinking to give the new teams and those further down the grid the chance to be successful.

For the record, like Tommy, I won't be changing Castrol Jones Racing's chassis or engine for 2015. I'm happy with what I have now!

by **Klon** » 23 Apr 2012, 04:23

New teams credits budget is still an issue? Well stand back for I am about to use SCIENCE! :shock:

We have nine teams in PQ. After the season ends we look at what each team has and add the sell-value of their chassis to that sum. Then we add all budgets together and calculate - that gives us the new team's budget which theoretically should put them right in the middle of pre-qualifying. Enough to make them competitve, not enough to make them successful.

by **MinardiFan95** » 24 Apr 2012, 19:23

On the issue of credits for new teams - perhaps leave the limit at 1000cr, but only give the teams 750cr as a starting point, with new teams able to earn extra money by signing a successful F2RWRS driver or two, which then gives an increased opportunity for F2RWRS drivers to step up into F1RWRS.

by **eurobrun** » 24 Apr 2012, 19:36

MinardiFan95 wrote:On the issue of credits for new teams - perhaps leave the limit at 1000cr, but only give the teams 750cr as a starting point, with new teams able to earn extra money by signing a successful F2RWRS driver or two, which then gives an increased opportunity for F2RWRS drivers to step up into F1RWRS.

No, if I get a F1RWRS team it will be too late to get a "successful" F2RWRS driver so my team is going to be screwed for it's entire existence.

Website · by **Wizzie** » 24 Apr 2012, 19:38

eurobrun wrote:
MinardiFan95 wrote:On the issue of credits for new teams - perhaps leave the limit at 1000cr, but only give the teams 750cr as a starting point, with new teams able to earn extra money by signing a successful F2RWRS driver or two, which then gives an increased opportunity for F2RWRS drivers to step up into F1RWRS.

No, if I get a F1RWRS team it will be too late to get a "successful" F2RWRS driver so my team is going to be screwed for it's entire existence.

Not necessarily. One simply has to pick up the F2RWRS champion from, say, 2015 or 2016 and the team's already 200 credits up. Besides, I'm about to announce my revamped credits system which would take effect retroactively with the team owners' approval. Except I lost the sheet which I wrote the proposed system on

by **Stramala** » 24 Apr 2012, 19:43

Wizzie wrote:
eurobrun wrote:
MinardiFan95 wrote:On the issue of credits for new teams - perhaps leave the limit at 1000cr, but only give the teams 750cr as a starting point, with new teams able to earn extra money by signing a successful F2RWRS driver or two, which then gives an increased opportunity for F2RWRS drivers to step up into F1RWRS.

No, if I get a F1RWRS team it will be too late to get a "successful" F2RWRS driver so my team is going to be screwed for it's entire existence.

Not necessarily. One simply has to pick up the F2RWRS champion from, say, 2015 or 2016 and the team's already 200 credits up.

Well, that isn't going to happen, becasue Andrej Kremnicky will be champion next season and he is contractually tied to Scuderia Alitalia until 2016, with a clause for an extra year that can be activated for 2017.

by **AndreaModa** » 24 Apr 2012, 21:26

Rather, runner up Andrej Kremnicky will be contracted to you yes, but champion Hawkin is contracted to us!

Anyway, the fact of the matter is, Aerond is of the firm belief that new teams entering won't be under any greater advantage with a 1000 credit budget, so as far as I'm concerned, that's end of story. If we later find out that our two new teams do in fact prove to be far more competitive than the teams currently in pre-qualifying, then we'll revisit the issue and try and come up with a solution.

by **AndreaModa** » 27 Apr 2012, 03:10

I'd just like to raise a point about the management of the 2015 season across all categories. I'd be very grateful to all of the members running respective championships if they could do their best to run them in tandem for the 2015 season, instead of the silly situation we have now where we still have 3 rounds of the F1RWRS season to go whilst all the other championships are now pretty much all set to go for 2015. It would make it far easier to follow, and by spreading it out, people who are away from the forum for a while don't miss out on too much either. Cheers!

by **Nuppiz** » 27 Apr 2012, 03:20

AndreaModa wrote:I'd just like to raise a point about the management of the 2015 season across all categories. I'd be very grateful to all of the members running respective championships if they could do their best to run them in tandem for the 2015 season, instead of the silly situation we have now where we still have 3 rounds of the F1RWRS season to go whilst all the other championships are now pretty much all set to go for 2015. It would make it far easier to follow, and by spreading it out, people who are away from the forum for a while don't miss out on too much either. Cheers!

I'm planning to do just that with the 2015 RoLFS season. I hurried a bit too much with last season because I was afraid it wouldn't be completed in time for the end of the F1RWRS season, but as it turns out I would've still had plenty of time with it. However, the next RoLFS season won't start until at least one F1RWRS GP has been completed, and the breaks between the races will be longer so that the season will end at a logical time (the last GP is in the fictional late September, so about when F1RWRS has reached that point in their calendar). I may hold the pre-season tests at any time, though, even if the F1RWRS season hasn't even started.

At the moment I'm just reminding people of various things (drivers, liveries, suppliers etc.) in the topic, so that when the season eventually starts I don't have to start asking them to do their decisions then!

by **Stramala** » 27 Apr 2012, 03:22

TMRRC has already started with Monte Carlo becasue it takes two weeks to complete one round, plus a one week gap in between events. This means the entire series will take 30 weeks to complete, but I may skip the gap weeks if I find the TMRRC needs to catch up. Also, as the Monte Carlo rally is traditionally in January, it would start before every other 2015 series anyway.

by **FMecha** » 05 May 2012, 01:43

I'm just want to raise this issue.

As I'm aware, Aerond has pulled a DJ Squire (i.e. became a DJ IIRC). I'm voicing a concern: will this hamper the progress of F1RWRS?

Also, I (Mecha GP) supports the idea of change of the point system. There are 40 cars, and of these, only 26 will start, and of those, only 6 will made it into points! (In short: 40 to 26 to 6). It is very annonying for smaller teams. I think we should revert to the previous point systems. (In F1 too, there are around 35 cars in 1990, 27 will start, 6 will made it into points).

by **Stramala** » 05 May 2012, 03:31

FMecha wrote:I'm just want to raise this issue.

As I'm aware, Aerond has pulled a DJ Squire (i.e. became a DJ IIRC). I'm voicing a concern: will this hamper the progress of F1RWRS? )

This is indeed a problem. As I suggested, for me, the ideal solution is finding someone who can find the time to run the series and perhaps with newer software such as rFactor. The REECCS has proven to be quite interesting using this, it allows for a multitude of Formulas, plus highlights can be uploaded to YouTube.

If I had rFactor I would come forward and nominate myself, but I don't, so I won't. Nor do I have an equivalent programme suitable for running F1RWRS if we want to keep 26 cars starting all the races.

And I am in favour of reverting to the 2010 points system

by **FMecha** » 05 May 2012, 03:45

kostas22 wrote:
FMecha wrote:I'm just want to raise this issue.

As I'm aware, Aerond has pulled a DJ Squire (i.e. became a DJ IIRC). I'm voicing a concern: will this hamper the progress of F1RWRS? )

This is indeed a problem. As I suggested, for me, the ideal solution is finding someone who can find the time to run the series and perhaps with newer software such as rFactor. The REECCS has proven to be quite interesting using this, it allows for a multitude of Formulas, plus highlights can be uploaded to YouTube.

If I had rFactor I would come forward and nominate myself, but I don't, so I won't. Nor do I have an equivalent programme suitable for running F1RWRS if we want to keep 26 cars starting all the races.

And I am in favour of reverting to the 2010 points system

I have GP2, but I've too lazy to configure the tracks. And I never figured how pre-qualifying works either.

The main problem is, what if his activities became real-life interlude (see F1RMGP) and as a result, he went AWOL?

Think about that!

Also, is the single-team rule for next season also prohibits team-sharing (i.e. a team owned jointly by multiple members, as in case of ArrowTech)?

by **Stramala** » 05 May 2012, 03:56

FMecha wrote:Also, is the single-team rule for next season also prohibits team-sharing (i.e. a team owned jointly by multiple members, as in case of ArrowTech)?

No, but you can't have a stake in more than one team. So you can't have a 50% stake in two teams, which mathematically speaking would equate to 'one team'. But it isn't, you can only have an interest in one team on the grid.

by **AndreaModa** » 05 May 2012, 05:34

What people have to bear in mind is that the system currently being run for the F1RWRS requires a lot of backroom work for whoever runs the series. Aerond is skilled in the use of GP2, hence why he has been able to create the credit system, chassis and engine lists as well as all the different upgrades. It would be very unwise to pull the carpet out from underneath his feet simply because he has a few more commitments in the real world. Now if Aerond at any point feels he can no longer run the series properly, then that is the point at which we should discuss who should take on the mantle for running it. Until then, we shouldn't be discussing things like this. It's unfair on Aerond, puts unnecessary pressure on him and gives the impression of members complaining about him and being very ungrateful. I'm sure that isn't the case, and FMecha raises a good point, but I'm not going to encourage or enter into any discussions about the running of the series before Aerond raises the issue himself.

The points system doesn't need changing, because we rarely get any more than 11 or 12 finishers in a race, and often less than that. Smaller teams will have a whole host of additional benefits for 2015 and a changed points system isn't something we need to add to that. This matter has been discussed at length previously and we don't need to go over it again.

As for new team entries BlindCaveSalamander, I believe Pointrox and This are looking for slots for 2016 already, so you would be next in line after them (though I may have missed someone). It's a shame we have so many members eager to enter!

by **FMecha** » 05 May 2012, 05:38

AndreaModa wrote:What people have to bear in mind is that the system currently being run for the F1RWRS requires a lot of backroom work for whoever runs the series. Aerond is skilled in the use of GP2, hence why he has been able to create the credit system, chassis and engine lists as well as all the different upgrades. It would be very unwise to pull the carpet out from underneath his feet simply because he has a few more commitments in the real world. Now if Aerond at any point feels he can no longer run the series properly, then that is the point at which we should discuss who should take on the mantle for running it. Until then, we shouldn't be discussing things like this. It's unfair on Aerond, puts unnecessary pressure on him and gives the impression of members complaining about him and being very ungrateful. I'm sure that isn't the case, and FMecha raises a good point, but I'm not going to encourage or enter into any discussions about the running of the series before Aerond raises the issue himself.

The points system doesn't need changing, because we rarely get any more than 11 or 12 finishers in a race, and often less than that. Smaller teams will have a whole host of additional benefits for 2015 and a changed points system isn't something we need to add to that. This matter has been discussed at length previously and we don't need to go over it again.

As for new team entries BlindCaveSalamander, I believe Pointrox and This are looking for slots for 2016 already, so you would be next in line after them (though I may have missed someone). It's a shame we have so many members eager to enter!

I'm not aware with both issues, but thank you for clarifiying. :oops:

by **JeremyMcClean** » 05 May 2012, 06:17

kostas22 wrote:
FMecha wrote:Also, is the single-team rule for next season also prohibits team-sharing (i.e. a team owned jointly by multiple members, as in case of ArrowTech)?

No, but you can't have a stake in more than one team. So you can't have a 50% stake in two teams, which mathematically speaking would equate to 'one team'. But it isn't, you can only have an interest in one team on the grid.

Well, there went that idea...

As for the progress of F1RWRS, I think Aerond is doing a great job in using GP2 for the league. In fact, I don't think F1RWRS is going too slowly, it's that the other leagues are going too bloody fast!

Website · by **Wizzie** » 05 May 2012, 08:09

JeremyMcClean wrote:
kostas22 wrote:
FMecha wrote:Also, is the single-team rule for next season also prohibits team-sharing (i.e. a team owned jointly by multiple members, as in case of ArrowTech)?

No, but you can't have a stake in more than one team. So you can't have a 50% stake in two teams, which mathematically speaking would equate to 'one team'. But it isn't, you can only have an interest in one team on the grid.

Well, there went that idea...

As for the progress of F1RWRS, I think Aerond is doing a great job in using GP2 for the league. In fact, I don't think F1RWRS is going too slowly, it's that the other leagues are going too bloody fast!

Oi! Aerond gave both Lappy and myself permission to go ahead with the F2 and F3RWRS. It's just that you muppets decided that swapping drivers between categories every second week was a good idea :roll:

by **eurobrun** » 05 May 2012, 09:48

JeremyMcClean wrote:
kostas22 wrote:
FMecha wrote:Also, is the single-team rule for next season also prohibits team-sharing (i.e. a team owned jointly by multiple members, as in case of ArrowTech)?

No, but you can't have a stake in more than one team. So you can't have a 50% stake in two teams, which mathematically speaking would equate to 'one team'. But it isn't, you can only have an interest in one team on the grid.

Well, there went that idea...

As for the progress of F1RWRS, I think Aerond is doing a great job in using GP2 for the league. In fact, I don't think F1RWRS is going too slowly, it's that the other leagues are going too bloody fast!

Just out of curiosity, did you get my reply to your email.

by **JeremyMcClean** » 05 May 2012, 11:44

eurobrun wrote:
Just out of curiosity, did you get my reply to your email.

Yes....

Website · by **Wizzie** » 07 May 2012, 19:50

MRT will like to bring up the reject license criteria yet again. No, it's not the F1 driver criteria MRT have been trying so hard to have reinstated. Instead, we propose the following additions to the criteria:

If a driver doesn't qualify for a Reject Superlicense through the F1RWRS and associated categories, a driver can qualify through the following criteria:
g) Have finished in the top 5 overall of any F1RLFS season or won an F1RLFS feature race; or
h) Have finished in the top 5 overall of any F1 Rejects Indy Championship Series season; or
i) Have finished in the top 3 overall in the Lotus Racing League; or
j) Have previously won the REECCS Championship: or
k) Have previously won the TRRC or JRRC Championship

Article H is up for serious consideration while K is there simply because I can :lol:

by **FMecha** » 07 May 2012, 23:04

K in my opinion does not work. F1RWRS and TMRRC is different; F1RWRS is on-road formula racing. TMRRC is off-road rallying. So... :roll:

by **Nuppiz** » 07 May 2012, 23:23

What about RTCC then? Admittely, single-seater drivers usually go to touring cars to end their careers there instead of vice versa, but hey, we're F1Rejects after all!

by **the Masked Lapwing** » 07 May 2012, 23:27

Nuppiz wrote:What about RTCC then? Admittely, single-seater drivers usually go to touring cars to end their careers there instead of vice versa, but hey, we're F1Rejects after all!

I'd be fine with this, but the big problem is the 16 year gap between the two series.

by **Nuppiz** » 07 May 2012, 23:42

the Masked Lapwing wrote:I'd be fine with this, but the big problem is the 16 year gap between the two series.

Ah, had forgotten about that. Best to scrap that idea, then.

F1Rejects.com

Who is online