Quarterly cost: �0
 
March 29, 2024, 02:07:22 AM +0000 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Series
S4455GPP
S4455GPW
S4466CA
S4467F1P
S4467F1W
S4467F2A
S4467F2P
S44JSMT
Recent
S4455GPW Indianapolis …
S4455GPP Indianapolis …
S4466CA Road America (…
S4467F1W Imola (1953-7…
S4467F1P Imola (1953-7…
S4467F2A Ingliston
S4467F2P Ingliston
Forthcoming
S44JSMT Goodwood (Circ…
S44JSMT Boreham Airfie…
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register     LM2 Replays Rules Links Circuits Teams  
Linked Events
  • S2467P Silverstone: April 07, 2013
April 07, 2013, 09:37:12 PM +0100 - Silverstone (GP 1952-73) - UKGPL Season 24 (2013) Privateers Trophy (67)
Driver
 Team
Nat. Make Model Class Qualifying Race
Tyres Pos Time/Gap Pos Time/Gap Laps Stops Best Retirement
reason
Ballast
AnGex
 Black Night Racing
Cooper T81b (Maserati) F1 1967 3 +0.364
117.936mph
1 51:32.425
115.827mph
34 1:29.962
117.103mph
Firestone  
DLogan
 
Honda RA300 F1 1967 2 +0.117
118.263mph
2 +18.546
115.136mph
34 1:29.904
117.179mph
Firestone  
maddog
 Antipasti Racing
Brabham BT24 (Repco) F1 1967 11 +2.270
115.472mph
3 (+2) +1L
112.398mph
33 1:30.635
116.234mph
Goodyear  
dave curtis
 Black Night Racing
Honda RA300 F1 1967 13 +2.429
115.271mph
4 +0.506
112.380mph
33 1:30.928
115.859mph
Firestone  
Flow
 
BRM P115 F1 1967 5 +1.553
116.387mph
5 +10.258
112.027mph
33 1:31.366
115.304mph
Goodyear  
bernie
 Soggy Bottom Racers Club
Brabham BT24 (Repco) F1 1967 15 +3.539
113.888mph
6 +51.185
110.569mph
33 1:31.642
114.957mph
Goodyear  
philippe GIRARD
 Blue Moose Racing
Brabham BT24 (Repco) F1 1967 12 +2.332
115.394mph
7 +2L
111.141mph
32 1:31.552
115.070mph
Goodyear  
James Andrew
 
Ferrari 312 (1967) F1 1967 14 +2.655
114.987mph
8 +3L
104.758mph
31 1:31.227
115.480mph
Firestone  
Michael Turner
 Soggy Bottom Racers Club
Brabham BT24 (Repco) F1 1967 9 +2.048
115.754mph
9 +50.373
103.093mph
31 1:32.882
113.422mph
Goodyear  
francesco
 Antipasti Racing
Brabham BT24 (Repco) F1 1967 6 +1.559
116.379mph
10 +6L
112.120mph
28 1:31.222
115.486mph
Disco
Goodyear  
tintin
 Clark-Hill Racing
Ferrari 312 (1967) F1 1967 8 +1.895
115.949mph
11 +10L
111.917mph
24 1:30.637
116.231mph
Disco
Firestone  
il_lupo_mannaro
 Black Night Racing
Brabham BT24 (Repco) F1 1967 10 +2.237
115.514mph
12 +23L
111.884mph
11 1:31.216
115.493mph
Disco
Goodyear  
Nigel Smith
 Blue Moose Racing
Ferrari 312 (1967) F1 1967 16 +4.195
113.086mph
13 +59.109
105.843mph
11 1:32.175
114.292mph
Disco
Firestone  
Geoff65
 Clark-Hill Racing
Brabham BT24 (Repco) F1 1967 4 +0.958
117.157mph
14 +28L
105.582mph
6 1:32.404
114.009mph
Disco
Goodyear  
Cookie
 Antipasti Racing
Ferrari 312 (1967) F1 1967 1 1:28.963
118.418mph
15 +32L
114.364mph
2 1:30.469
116.447mph
Disco
Firestone  
BadBlood
 Blue Moose Racing
Lotus 49 (Cosworth) F1 1967 7 +1.563
116.374mph
16 +33L
83.858mph
1 2:03.685
85.175mph
Disco
Firestone  
2 UKGPL_T7
 
Lotus 49 (Cosworth) F1 1967 17 17 DNS ---
---
Firestone  

Moderator's Report

Only three incidents of note in the Red Zone, so not too bad.


Server replay time: 0h00m56s

Martin does not realise how cautious Tintin is being into T1 and does his best to avoid a rear end but careers off the wall and takes out Michael as well. He should have been more cautious. Although Martin believes warp is involved I think that this is GPLs poor collision box modelling as the modelling is continuous frame by frame. Nice try though!


Server replay time: 0h01m03s

Nigel is a bit slow to react to the developing incident and taps Bernie who has pretty much come to a complete halt. This was just a bit careless. Both cars continue.


Server replay time: 0h20m55s

Florian is passing Michael. This is a classic will he? won\'t he? situation. Michael maintains his line and expects Flow to pass on the right. Florian expects Michael to cede the fastest line so goes left and has to take to the grass. This slows him but Michael pulls right and slows a little. Florian then believes that Michael has slowed to let him through and takes the racing line through T1. Michael is still there.

This was just confusion and the poor visibility. The fairest call is Racing Incident. Both drivers probably feel it was the other mans fault.


Server replay time: 0h40m22s

Michael is having fun with the Gebhardts. This time it is Dad!

Although it was reported as an incident Andreas has enough control to pass Michael easily, particularly as Michael\'s engine was damaged.

Michael points out that on being lapped you are advised to stay on the racing line. I am satisfied that Michael new his mirrors were full but given the damage he might have shown Andreas the inside.

Pages: 1 2 [3]
  Print  
Author Topic: UKGPL Season 24 (2013) Privateers Trophy (67) - Silverstone - Apr 7  (Read 10370 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
bernie
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3270


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: April 09, 2013, 09:57:30 PM +0100 »

Chill out you guys this is Privateers not Pro , supposed to be fun racing for improvers novices and hopefuls , some like me who are long past there sell by date   Roll Eyes

If you want the kind of serious racing you seem to crave I suggest you might like to move up a level to Pro's
 
and BTW I dont think the FIA rules for 1982 or any other year count in UKGPL
Logged
maddog
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 1709


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: April 09, 2013, 10:53:17 PM +0100 »

I agree.  We are mostly more gentlemanly at Ukgpl, and here to have fun.  There are some fast guys who will make their displeasure known, because winning is important.  For most, fun racing is most important, and we all have to learn how to make this happen.

You're mistaken about F1 rules never being used Bernie.  When I appealed a bad decision, I was given a modern F1 rule, as reason for my penalty.  I've been racing 65's a lot less since.  It's a good job  our Moderators are mostly here to help us have fun.  That includes sorting out a lapping incident  -  common sense rules? Undecided
« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 10:55:19 PM +0100 by maddog » Logged
BadBlood
Former UKGPL Moderators
Hero Member
**
Posts: 6107


Sassafrassarassum Rick Rastardly!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #32 on: April 09, 2013, 11:01:48 PM +0100 »

The rule was quoted as it currently is in modern F1, but has been commonly accepted for much longer. That was not why the appeal was disallowed. Four wheels beyond the lines would have been off-track in 1965, let alone 1967.
Logged

BadBlood

aka

Angel Moose angel
GPLRank +71.5ish Smiley
GPL65Rank +71.1ish Smiley
Other ranks? Middlin' Slowish Wink
bernie
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3270


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: April 09, 2013, 11:15:35 PM +0100 »

I agree.  We are mostly more gentlemanly at Ukgpl, and here to have fun.  There are some fast guys who will make their displeasure known, because winning is important.  For most, fun racing is most important, and we all have to learn how to make this happen.

You're mistaken about F1 rules never being used Bernie.  When I appealed a bad decision, I was given a modern F1 rule, as reason for my penalty.  I've been racing 65's a lot less since.  It's a good job  our Moderators are mostly here to help us have fun.  That includes sorting out a lapping incident  -  common sense rules? Undecided

Sir , I believe you are putting my good judgement and credability into disrepute ?


There is only one way to settle this


I must insist



Pistols at dawn  Shocked Shocked Shocked


You will be hearing from my seconds just as soon as I've saved enough green shield stamps to get my guns out of hock  Huh
« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 11:28:56 PM +0100 by bernie » Logged
maddog
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 1709


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: April 09, 2013, 11:54:41 PM +0100 »

"Have a care Sir!"  I choose gear sticks at dawn.  But I'd like to see the Moderators rulebook first.  If either of us were to consequently pass, carelessly, would that be grounds for a penalty?  And supposing there were grass under foot, would that cause an unsavory outcoming?

And to Paul - it's not in your interest to commence debate on a long past incident.  This discussion would follow along similar lines to the recent, mid-season rule change debate.  Better to, 'Let sleeping dogs lie.' . . . . . hang on . . . .  "Curses!"  Tongue
« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 11:59:32 PM +0100 by maddog » Logged
BadBlood
Former UKGPL Moderators
Hero Member
**
Posts: 6107


Sassafrassarassum Rick Rastardly!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #35 on: April 10, 2013, 12:12:20 AM +0100 »

Martin - it is you that constantly brings up the past. You didn't agree with the moderation. The appeal failed. As for the moderator's rulebook - it is here - open to all.

It feels like you are quietly sniping at the moderation team which is not the 'gentlemanly' behaviour that UKGPL encourages. Maybe it is mis-interpretation of your 'humour' but that is how it reads. I suspect you know that.

"It's a good job  our Moderators are mostly here to help us have fun." implies that sometimes the Mod team are there to ensure you don't have fun or that some moderators always do that. Subtle. Actually we are there to do all the boring admin that enables the league to function at all and we are also there to ensure the rules are clear and, where possible, adhered to.


« Last Edit: April 10, 2013, 12:39:26 AM +0100 by BadBlood » Logged

BadBlood

aka

Angel Moose angel
GPLRank +71.5ish Smiley
GPL65Rank +71.1ish Smiley
Other ranks? Middlin' Slowish Wink
maddog
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 1709


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: April 10, 2013, 08:35:34 AM +0100 »

Dear Paul,

Agreed, the technicalities are boring unless personally involved.  They are then suddenly of great interest.  As you seem interested, here's my perspective . . .

Fairness is a part of Gentlemanly behavior.  It's one of the rigors of Moderating. The outcome of my now rapidly becoming famous dispute, was to create a new overarching definition of an offtrack incident, which removes earlier flexibility when Moderators are judging what is fair. A modern F1 approach was adopted, though such was not in use during our racing era.

My irritation was caused by the application of an ill-defined rule, backed up by modern F1 regulations.  I believe the purpose of tightening the rulebook, was to lessen the need for the use of common sense by Moderating staff - it's become more black & white.  As I've not ventured into this area since it's re-invention, it's had no personal effect. 

Such a vigorous response from you, was not expected?  A point was raised by Bernie, and I corrected him.  A reminder that common sense is an asset, and leads to wiser rulings is not an unusual viewpoint.  It's not necessarily in a racers nature to enjoy restrictive rules, but when applied wisely they can help to foster gentlemanly behavior.  I believe this is where I came in? 
   
Logged
BadBlood
Former UKGPL Moderators
Hero Member
**
Posts: 6107


Sassafrassarassum Rick Rastardly!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #37 on: April 10, 2013, 10:51:02 AM +0100 »

That is a much more measured reply and is appreciated but you will be aware that there has been a lot of discussion about how moderating decisions have been too subjective and should be based on better defined rules and standards.

My issue (and the reason for the reply) is that you keep referring back to that appeal to highlight how 'poor' decisions continue to be made. You have also not addressed the fact that you (even if unintentionally) continue to denigrate the Moderating team - or perhaps just one member of it? Hence the 'robust' reply.

I believe the purpose of tightening the rulebook, was to lessen the need for the use of common sense by Moderating staff

You should know that to be untrue. It was to provide a standard by which incidents can be judged. If all four wheels are beyond a well defined track limit you are 'off-track' and have to be careful when coming back on. That does not mean you cannot do it. On some tracks it is unavoidable if you want a quick time. It does mean that you have to be cognisant of other drivers around you and you cannot just wander back onto the track. The ruling (not the rule) implies a specific 'right of way'. Moderators have, and still can, apply the rule in the way they see best fits - using 'Common Sense'.



« Last Edit: April 10, 2013, 10:56:09 AM +0100 by BadBlood » Logged

BadBlood

aka

Angel Moose angel
GPLRank +71.5ish Smiley
GPL65Rank +71.1ish Smiley
Other ranks? Middlin' Slowish Wink
maddog
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 1709


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: April 10, 2013, 12:57:49 PM +0100 »

My reply was more thoughtful, as this matter threatens to take energy from your other Ukgpl duties.  I'm happy to hear in your last paragraph, that the added rules have actually added flexibility to the system.  And I have at no time said that poor decisions are being made, in this context.  The decision making process has become more automated, and this can create limitations.

There's no doubt here as-to your commitment to a fair, and even handed system of Moderation.  It's not a driving requirement to agree with every aspect of that process.  Civilized behaviour achieved with the fewest possible restrictions, would be my aim.  But I'm not running a clandestine campaign for President, or Ukgpl leadership.  I am willing to voice an opinion, where I think it's useful. 

When Bernie has a chuckle about a dispute, and I join in his humor, I don't expect a heavy hand from above, for not doggedly towing the line.  I will continue to expect an honest opinion to be tolerated.  The world is full of checks and balances.  I'm not a Czech, so I must be a balance.  Wishing you well, 



Martin.
Logged
BadBlood
Former UKGPL Moderators
Hero Member
**
Posts: 6107


Sassafrassarassum Rick Rastardly!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #39 on: April 10, 2013, 08:35:23 PM +0100 »

OK. Thanks for the clarifications.

See you on track sometime.
Logged

BadBlood

aka

Angel Moose angel
GPLRank +71.5ish Smiley
GPL65Rank +71.1ish Smiley
Other ranks? Middlin' Slowish Wink
maddog
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 1709


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: April 26, 2013, 10:43:14 PM +0100 »

I don't usually have reason to comment on a incident report.  I confess a meeting with Tintin, on the occasion of the 1st turn.  Judgement is I warped into his car, when both the Server, and my Client replay clearly show a reasonable distance between us.  The warp veered him into my path.  It's quite possible I would've caught his nose as I squeezed . . . umm, but the diagnosis gives me a slight headache!  Tongue
Logged
BadBlood
Former UKGPL Moderators
Hero Member
**
Posts: 6107


Sassafrassarassum Rick Rastardly!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #41 on: April 26, 2013, 11:18:27 PM +0100 »

The judgement is that warp was not actually a major factor Martin. I can see no evidence of violent movement in the server or client replay that usually characterises warp. There is some small movement which is usually an adjustment due to collision box overlap but you are correct in saying that there is a gap between the cars. That isn't warp - that is collision box overlap which drivers have to allow for. Do feel free to appeal it if you are unhappy - that would not be something I could take part in but I really don't think warp was much of an issue here.

Take a look at 59secs + 20 frames. Tintins car 'hops' so that it is parallel with yours as your car reaches its closest point. Tintins car than diverges from yours until you hit the wall and bounce back into his path. You clearly did all you could to avoid the collision once it was clear how slow Tintin was but this was the inside of T1 L1 when caution is required. Hence the verdict.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 11:30:11 PM +0100 by BadBlood » Logged

BadBlood

aka

Angel Moose angel
GPLRank +71.5ish Smiley
GPL65Rank +71.1ish Smiley
Other ranks? Middlin' Slowish Wink
BadBlood
Former UKGPL Moderators
Hero Member
**
Posts: 6107


Sassafrassarassum Rick Rastardly!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #42 on: April 26, 2013, 11:22:22 PM +0100 »

As you can see, Moderation published. Sorry for the lateness.
Logged

BadBlood

aka

Angel Moose angel
GPLRank +71.5ish Smiley
GPL65Rank +71.1ish Smiley
Other ranks? Middlin' Slowish Wink
maddog
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 1709


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: April 26, 2013, 11:49:07 PM +0100 »

I've no reason to appeal - I've no quarrel with Moderation when a warp free outcome might easily have been the same.  I've also no reason to recheck a replay as I'm aware of physics, and how it applies to a moving body.  It took me years to get it right.   
Logged
AnGex
Full Member
***
Posts: 508



View Profile
« Reply #44 on: April 27, 2013, 10:05:28 AM +0100 »

As you can see, Moderation published. Sorry for the lateness.

All-right then, thanks for your work Paul. I don´t know what exactly it is, but somehow I like your explanation in the Moderation.  Smiley

So long
Andreas

Logged

Get up, stand up: stand up for your right!
Get up, stand up: don't give up the fight!
Pages: 1 2 [3]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Hosted by DaveGymer.com
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.582 seconds with 59 queries.
anything