F1Rejects.com

by **AdrianSutil** » 22 Mar 2012, 05:38

AndreaModa wrote:I'm not going to join either side of that argument, because I feel that Aerond, who runs the races for us all, should have ultimate discretion over how many teams he wants to be entered.

I'm not trying to start an argument, it's merely my opinion.

by **AndreaModa** » 22 Mar 2012, 05:48

AdrianSutil wrote:
AndreaModa wrote:I'm not going to join either side of that argument, because I feel that Aerond, who runs the races for us all, should have ultimate discretion over how many teams he wants to be entered.

I'm not trying to start an argument, it's merely my opinion.

Oh I know, don't get me wrong I think it's quite a legitimate issue, all I'm saying is that I'm not going to advocate either opinion.

Website · by **Wizzie** » 24 Mar 2012, 10:50

As of right now, MRT has no official stance on the issue either as Mr Melrose can now see the pros and cons to both sides of the issue.

Speaking of issues, MRT would like to raise a much more trivial one of renaming the F1RTA the "Formula One Rejects Teams Initiative (FORTI)", primarily to demonstrate that the teams are taking their initiative in tackling the big issues in the F1RWRS and partly because the acronym is a homage to one of our eternally rejectful ancestors Forti. And yes, I know the name was suggested before but I for the life of me can't recall who it was by.

by **JeremyMcClean** » 24 Mar 2012, 11:07

Wizzie wrote:As of right now, MRT has no official stance on the issue either as Mr Melrose can now see the pros and cons to both sides of the issue.

Speaking of issues, MRT would like to raise a much more trivial one of renaming the F1RTA the "Formula One Rejects Teams Initiative (FORTI)", primarily to demonstrate that the teams are taking their initiative in tackling the big issues in the F1RWRS and partly because the acronym is a homage to one of our eternally rejectful ancestors Forti. And yes, I know the name was suggested before but I for the life of me can't recall who it was by.

I support this!

by **AndreaModa** » 24 Mar 2012, 11:19

Well if you really want to, but changing names confuses people who may not visit and post as often as us, and also prevents an identity being built up. However if we have further voices of support for this change over the next 24 hours or so, then I'll fully support this change.

This will also require the thread name to be changed, or a new thread to be established in its place.

by **JeremyMcClean** » 24 Mar 2012, 11:23

AndreaModa wrote:Well if you really want to, but changing names confuses people who may not visit and post as often as us, and also prevents an identity being built up. However if we have further voices of support for this change over the next 24 hours or so, then I'll fully support this change.

This will also require the thread name to be changed, or a new thread to be established in its place.

Considering that Wizzie was the person who brought up the name change and started this thread, changing the thread name is ridiculously easy.

by **AndreaModa** » 24 Mar 2012, 11:31

JeremyMcClean wrote:
AndreaModa wrote:Well if you really want to, but changing names confuses people who may not visit and post as often as us, and also prevents an identity being built up. However if we have further voices of support for this change over the next 24 hours or so, then I'll fully support this change.

This will also require the thread name to be changed, or a new thread to be established in its place.

Considering that Wizzie was the person who brought up the name change and started this thread, changing the thread name is ridiculously easy.

Bearing in mind I am the President Mr McClean, so just watch it okay?

by **AdrianSutil** » 24 Mar 2012, 12:13

I don't agree to the name change. Mainly because the RWRS is supposed to be the breakaway series of Formula 1, so why name the governing body after a Formula 1 team?!

by **Klon** » 25 Mar 2012, 00:47

Wizzie wrote:And yes, I know the name was suggested before but I for the life of me can't recall who it was by.

It was Bari Morii, so Castrol Jones Racing are going to deny this suggestion, I'd guess. :lol:

Tropico Grand Prix agrees with the proposed name change.

by **JeremyMcClean** » 25 Mar 2012, 00:51

AdrianSutil wrote:I don't agree to the name change. Mainly because the RWRS is supposed to be the breakaway series of Formula 1, so why name the governing body after a Formula 1 team?!

Keep in mind, this is the Formula One Rejects Series, and Forti is a reject team, so it makes sense.

by **dr-baker** » 25 Mar 2012, 00:54

Just realised that I am an F1RWRS team boss and have not really got involved in this. And to be honest, what's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet...

by **Klon** » 25 Mar 2012, 00:56

dr-baker wrote:A rose by any other name would smell as sweet...

Not if you call them 'Stench Blossoms'. :lol:

by **dr-baker** » 25 Mar 2012, 01:18

If you were to call the flower bull-plops or stinking turds, the flower would still have the same smell and the same appearance, wouldn't it!

by **Warren Hughes** » 25 Mar 2012, 04:35

If people look back through the thread, they may find that the FORTI name change has been suggested before

Website · by **Wizzie** » 27 Mar 2012, 20:56

MRT would now like to make a more serious suggestion to the rule books. We made this suggestion earlier in the year but MRT would like to see the points system changed from 10-6-4-3-2-1 to 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 to help the smaller teams earn more credits and have something to aim for. As long as individual points have a fixed prize money attached to them, we believe that It'll help the smaller teams get some credits. While I don't have some concrete calculations to work from, I can easily get the paperwork off TMLW to do the calculations myself. Or, I can make him do it to have him do something useful for once :lol:

by **MinardiFan95** » 27 Mar 2012, 21:25

Simpson Motorsports also supports a change in points systems, however instead of the 8 points paying positions previously suggested by MRT, Simpson Motorsports will support a change to the old BTCC points system of 15-12-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1, with bonus points for qualifying on pole position, fastest lap and leading a lap.

by **AndreaModa** » 27 Mar 2012, 22:11

Okay so an update on the name change. It seems I'm not the only one who's cautious about changing it, and for that reason, I'm not entirely satisfied that it's worth the change, so that will be suspended until someone raises it again with a better argument. I hope that's okay with everyone.

Secondly, the new proposed points systems. I have to admit, I like the idea of more points being on offer, but I also think the system should be kept simple, and still relatively rewarding. Therefore of the two systems put forward so far, I'd support a change to a 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 system over any others because it just extends the positions down to 8th place. Had that been in effect this year we would have seen Prospec collect a load more points, Trueba would have scored, and the teams towards the lower end would have benefited massively. I'd like to see points extended down to 8th place, but I'm willing to hear arguments to the contrary.

Of course, any changes to the points system require Aerond's approval, so nothing will change until then I'm afraid.

by **Phoenix** » 28 Mar 2012, 01:04

Phoenix McAllister wrote:Aeroracing Engineering supports MRT proposal to change the points system from 10-6-4-3-2-1 to 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 on the grounds it favours both front-running and smaller teams, since, being credits awarded for individual points, top teams can get more credits for finishing 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th, while smaller teams have more chances of scoring.

by **JeremyMcClean** » 28 Mar 2012, 06:07

MinardiFan95 wrote:Simpson Motorsports also supports a change in points systems, however instead of the 8 points paying positions previously suggested by MRT, Simpson Motorsports will support a change to the old BTCC points system of 15-12-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1, with bonus points for qualifying on pole position, fastest lap and leading a lap.

This, only without the bonus points. However, I would be fine with changing to just 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1.

by **the Masked Lapwing** » 28 Mar 2012, 07:21

MinardiFan95 wrote:Simpson Motorsports also supports a change in points systems, however instead of the 8 points paying positions previously suggested by MRT, Simpson Motorsports will support a change to the old BTCC points system of 15-12-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1, with bonus points for qualifying on pole position, fastest lap and leading a lap.

Drop the lap leader point and I agree with this one (mostly because it's similar to what the 2011-12 system was).

by **dr-baker** » 28 Mar 2012, 07:54

MinardiFan95 wrote:Simpson Motorsports also supports a change in points systems, however instead of the 8 points paying positions previously suggested by MRT, Simpson Motorsports will support a change to the old BTCC points system of 15-12-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1, with bonus points for qualifying on pole position, fastest lap and leading a lap.

JeremyMcClean wrote:This, only without the bonus points. However, I would be fine with changing to just 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1.

the Masked Lapwing wrote:Drop the lap leader point and I agree with this one (MinardiFan 95) (mostly because it's similar to what the 2011-12 system was).

Any of these three. I prefer the full BTCC system, but can understand the need not to have all the bonus points.

Website · by **Wizzie** » 28 Mar 2012, 07:57

The problem I have with handing out bonus points for poles and fastest laps is that teams already get credits for those at it is so there really isn't much point with changing that. However if the 2003 F1 points system doesn't get approved, then MRT has no problem with the BTCC points system.

EDIT: Having done some very quick calculations, using Prospec's 2013 results (Because, who doesn't want to help them out?) I calculated under the 2003 points system, they'd have scored 35 points which would have given them 175 credits. Instead, they only scored 12 and 60 credits as a result.

by **AdrianSutil** » 28 Mar 2012, 09:25

MA-Racing don't have a problem with either the current point system or indeed any changes for the future.

by **tristan1117** » 28 Mar 2012, 09:54

Given that American Racing Conglomerate can't finish a race anyway, the points system won't help us that much. I still support the 15-12-10-8... system, though.

by **Shizuka** » 28 Mar 2012, 16:54

I also support the new points system, or at least the BTCC-ish base of it.

by **Aerond** » 28 Mar 2012, 17:33

I don't see the need to hand out more credits ATM. So if we change the system it would be to sill hand out 10 points to the winner. That said, what we really have to do is to discuss the need to hand out points to more drivers. My position is that we don't need it (either from an sporting or economical point of view). Not sportingly because the current retirement rate is still quite high, and not economically because enough credits are being given to those teams which don't get into points positions.

by **AndreaModa** » 28 Mar 2012, 21:22

A decision I'm happy with. What you are saying though Aerond is that should the points system change, the winner should still receive 10pts/credits, so in theory a system similar to 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 would be the most desirable.

I think a suitable time to review the system would be when reliability starts to prevent smaller teams from scoring. This may be next season, it may be in three seasons' time, it's hard to say. Now that Aerond has made his opinion clear on the matter, would anyone like to raise any problems they have with it?

by **tristan1117** » 28 Mar 2012, 21:35

AndreaModa wrote:A decision I'm happy with. What you are saying though Aerond is that should the points system change, the winner should still receive 10pts/credits, so in theory a system similar to 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 would be the most desirable.

I think a suitable time to review the system would be when reliability starts to prevent smaller teams from scoring. This may be next season, it may be in three seasons' time, it's hard to say. Now that Aerond has made his opinion clear on the matter, would anyone like to raise any problems they have with it?

Can we still get a point for pole and fastest lap? That's how it was back in the old pre-2013 days and it won't affect the championship standings and credit distribution that much.

by **dr-baker** » 29 Mar 2012, 00:58

tristan1117 wrote:
AndreaModa wrote:A decision I'm happy with. What you are saying though Aerond is that should the points system change, the winner should still receive 10pts/credits, so in theory a system similar to 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 would be the most desirable.

I think a suitable time to review the system would be when reliability starts to prevent smaller teams from scoring. This may be next season, it may be in three seasons' time, it's hard to say. Now that Aerond has made his opinion clear on the matter, would anyone like to raise any problems they have with it?

Can we still get a point for pole and fastest lap? That's how it was back in the old pre-2013 days and it won't affect the championship standings and credit distribution that much.

After all, it would give the more unreliable teams the chance to score something - goodness knows how many points Foxdale could have scored in the 2013 season had these bonus points then. I reckon it could have doubled their final points tally?

by **AndreaModa** » 29 Mar 2012, 02:58

The trouble is look at this season - pretty much all the points would go to either MRT or DGNgineering, with the exception of Bosevic's pole at Monaco. Both of these teams are already nigh on untouchable in race trim unless they suffer reliability problems, so I don't think they need any extra help through something like this.

With the turbo ban next season this may possibly change, but I'd be willing to wait another season to see if poles and fastest laps are spread out more evenly next year. Besides, they are both already rewarded in the credit system anyway.

Website · by **Wizzie** » 30 Mar 2012, 12:58

AndreaModa wrote:The trouble is look at this season - pretty much all the points would go to either MRT or DGNgineering, with the exception of Bosevic's pole at Monaco. Both of these teams are already nigh on untouchable in race trim unless they suffer reliability problems, so I don't think they need any extra help through something like this.

Which is surprisingly often for MRT thanks to the hand-grenade characteristics of the BMW engine

by **JeremyMcClean** » 30 Mar 2012, 12:59

Wizzie wrote:
AndreaModa wrote:The trouble is look at this season - pretty much all the points would go to either MRT or DGNgineering, with the exception of Bosevic's pole at Monaco. Both of these teams are already nigh on untouchable in race trim unless they suffer reliability problems, so I don't think they need any extra help through something like this.

Which is surprisingly often for MRT thanks to the hand-grenade characteristics of the BMW engine

So may I ask, why do you race it anyways? :lol:

Website · by **Wizzie** » 30 Mar 2012, 13:03

AndreaModa wrote:I think a suitable time to review the system would be when reliability starts to prevent smaller teams from scoring. This may be next season, it may be in three seasons' time, it's hard to say. Now that Aerond has made his opinion clear on the matter, would anyone like to raise any problems they have with it?

While I don't necessarily have a problem with the unreliability argument, I'd like to point out the average number of finishers in 2013 was around 11-12 (11.7 to be exact). Considering there's 26 starters and 6 points-scoring positions, an argument could be made either way based on that.

EDIT: Being the calculating person that I am, I decided to calculate how many extra points and credits each team would have scored last year with the 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 system.

Dagnall: 116 pts (+10) (+50 credits)
Gillet: 71 pts (+14) (+70 credits)
HRT: 78 pts (+29) (+145 credits)
Jones: 71 pts (+23) (+115 credits)
ArrowTech: 56 pts (+26) (+130 credits)
Sunshine: 43 pts (+14) (+70 credits)
ARC: 38 pts (+15) (+75 credits)
GRM: 33 pts (+12) (+60 credits)
Prospec: 35 pts (+23) (+115 credits)
Foxdale: 10 pts (0) (0 credits)
Flying Fish: 15 pts (+6) (+30 credits)
FAT: 14 pts (+7) (+35 credits)
Kahama: 18 pts (+11) (+55 credits)
MRT: 15 pts (+11) (+55 credits)
Phoenix: 6 pts (+4) (+20 credits)
Calinetic: 3 pts (+2) (+10 credits)

Interestingly, the teams that benefit the most are the ones in the 3rd-8th and 9th bracket, the very teams that were 'ignored' the most by the prize money system which led to the formation of the equalisation formula in the first place.

Website · by **Wizzie** » 30 Mar 2012, 13:21

JeremyMcClean wrote:
Wizzie wrote:
AndreaModa wrote:The trouble is look at this season - pretty much all the points would go to either MRT or DGNgineering, with the exception of Bosevic's pole at Monaco. Both of these teams are already nigh on untouchable in race trim unless they suffer reliability problems, so I don't think they need any extra help through something like this.

Which is surprisingly often for MRT thanks to the hand-grenade characteristics of the BMW engine

So may I ask, why do you race it anyways?

Because if I didn't, we'd still be stuck in pre-qualifying :lol:

by **dr-baker** » 30 Mar 2012, 19:17

Wizzie wrote:EDIT: Being the calculating person that I am, I decided to calculate how many extra points and credits each team would have scored last year with the 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 system.

Foxdale: 10 pts (0) (0 credits)

Interestingly, the teams that benefit the most are the ones in the 3rd-8th and 9th bracket, the very teams that were 'ignored' the most by the prize money system which led to the formation of the equalisation formula in the first place.

The only way Foxdale could have gained extra credits would be through bonus points for poles (not sure about fastest laps - I think Foxdale scored a few last season?). Or if points went down to 11th - the only other classification!

by **Shizuka** » 30 Mar 2012, 21:04

Wizzie wrote:
JeremyMcClean wrote:So may I ask, why do you race it anyways?

Because if I didn't, we'd still be stuck in pre-qualifying

Oh come on, our Foxdale-licensed waffles are good! :lol:

Website · by **Wizzie** » 30 Mar 2012, 22:07

Shizuka wrote:
Wizzie wrote:
JeremyMcClean wrote:So may I ask, why do you race it anyways?

Because if I didn't, we'd still be stuck in pre-qualifying

Oh come on, our Foxdale-licensed waffles are good!

It's not that I don't like you guys down there (those waffles are damn good BTW), it's just that we'd much rather be up front competing for wins and podiums

by **dr-baker** » 31 Mar 2012, 05:54

Foxdale want to be competing for wins and podiums again too! Last year, Foxdale were frustrated with all the DNFs but now, they realised they were getting a lot more publicity than they are now (because of all the poles and retirements from the lead)...

by **JeremyMcClean** » 31 Mar 2012, 06:50

For pure simplicity and for the 2015 F1RWRS page can everybody who currently has a signed driver submit their current lineups to me? I'm going to attempt to produce a provisional entry list for the 2015 season. (Don't worry if you don't have any drivers confirmed, I don't have any confirmed either!)

Website · by **Wizzie** » 31 Mar 2012, 07:18

Virgin MRT:
1. Phillippe Nicolas
2. Rhys Davies
TD. Jason Hamilton/Alessandro Marchesi (While Hamilton recovers from his injury)

F1Rejects.com

Who is online