GPL RANK : MAJOR CHANGE DISCUSSION

Hello, The thing is GREAT and i'll never thank the authors enough for it. But I think the way the handicap is calculated now could be improved and made more fair. What I mean is that we all know it is MUCH harder to win 1 sec in Monza as 10 seconds in Nurburg, and on the handicap ranking it pays 10 times more to win at the ring than in Monza. So my idea is : Why not make a sort of proportional ranking, here would be the calculation. If Sierra standard time for the ring would be 9.00.00 so that's 540 seconds and my best laps would be 8.00.00 that would be 480 seconds, then instead of making my handicap -60 on this track why not make it by calculating a percentage value where sierra would be 100 and my lap would be worth around 88.89, in monza if sierra is 1.28 that's 88 s and my time is 1.26 thats 86 and my handicap ratio is 97 (or better 0.97). Discussion opened

NO NO NO NO NO!!! and NO again!!! Have you read the GPLRank FAQ? It explains there exactly why the system is as it is. Why do people think the Nurburgring is so bloody *different*? So what if it's a long lap? There is plenty of time to be made up there( by some), because it takes a while to learn, and until you know the circuit, it'll be difficult to go quickly. Come to think of it though, it's difficult to be quick anywhere if you don't know the track, the 'Ring just takes longer to learn. Once you start doing good laps at the 'ring, you'll find that squeezing out an extra second there can be just as hard, if not harder than Monza, because the whole lap is very intense. Secondly, it's also easier to *loose* time at the Nurburgring, because there are *so* many places to get it wrong (and in a big way). I sincerely hope GPLRank stays the way it is, which is the most logical and sensible way to do it. IMHO, people should spend less time complaining, and spend that time working on their lap-times. Discussion closed. -- -Ace- Txl <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Hello, > > The thing is GREAT and i'll never thank the authors enough for it. > > But I think the way the handicap is calculated now could be improved and > made more fair. > > What I mean is that we all know it is MUCH harder to win 1 sec in Monza as > 10 seconds in Nurburg, and on the handicap ranking it pays 10 times more to > win at the ring than in Monza. > > So my idea is : Why not make a sort of proportional ranking, here would be > the calculation. > > If Sierra standard time for the ring would be 9.00.00 so that's 540 seconds > and my best laps would be 8.00.00 that would be 480 seconds, then instead of > making my handicap -60 on this track why not make it by calculating a > percentage value where sierra would be 100 and my lap would be worth around > 88.89, in monza if sierra is 1.28 that's 88 s and my time is 1.26 thats 86 > and my handicap ratio is 97 (or better 0.97). > > Discussion opened > >

Why not leave it up to the guy who took the time to make it? No one puts a gun to anyone's head and forces them to join.... -- Colin Harris ColinHarris in N3/NL & VROC Remove "your knickers" to reply Txl <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Hello, > > The thing is GREAT and i'll never thank the authors enough for it. > > But I think the way the handicap is calculated now could be improved and > made more fair. > > What I mean is that we all know it is MUCH harder to win 1 sec in Monza as > 10 seconds in Nurburg, and on the handicap ranking it pays 10 times more to > win at the ring than in Monza. > > So my idea is : Why not make a sort of proportional ranking, here would be > the calculation. > > If Sierra standard time for the ring would be 9.00.00 so that's 540 seconds > and my best laps would be 8.00.00 that would be 480 seconds, then instead of > making my handicap -60 on this track why not make it by calculating a > percentage value where sierra would be 100 and my lap would be worth around > 88.89, in monza if sierra is 1.28 that's 88 s and my time is 1.26 thats 86 > and my handicap ratio is 97 (or better 0.97). > > Discussion opened > >

Colin, I imagine the creators LIKE hearing suggestions from users about how the program could be made better in thier eyes. It was, after all, written for everyone's enjoyment. Some food for thought....When you open your own software company and tell your users who make suggestions: "I didn't put a gun to your head...", don't make any long-term plans. "Colin Harris" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:OYN85.18234$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (20 lines)

> Why not leave it up to the guy who took the time to make it? No one puts a > gun to anyone's head and forces them to join.... > > -- > Colin Harris > ColinHarris in N3/NL & VROC > Remove "your knickers" to reply > > > > > Txl <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > Hello, > > > > The thing is GREAT and i'll never thank the authors enough for it. > > > > But I think the way the handicap is calculated now could be improved and > > made more fair. > > > > What I mean is that we all know it is MUCH harder to win 1 sec in Monza

as > > 10 seconds in Nurburg, and on the handicap ranking it pays 10 times more > to > > win at the ring than in Monza. > > > > So my idea is : Why not make a sort of proportional ranking, here wouldbe > > the calculation. > > > > If Sierra standard time for the ring would be 9.00.00 so that's 540 > seconds > > and my best laps would be 8.00.00 that would be 480 seconds, theninstead > of > > making my handicap -60 on this track why not make it by calculating a > > percentage value where sierra would be 100 and my lap would be worth > around > > 88.89, in monza if sierra is 1.28 that's 88 s and my time is 1.26 thats86

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > and my handicap ratio is 97 (or better 0.97). > > > > Discussion opened > > > > > >

If I knew what you ment I could have answered...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Cool, Can you do keel hulling in it? > > Jim D. > > >

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > What I mean is that we all know it is MUCH harder to win 1 sec in Monza as > 10 seconds in Nurburg, and on the handicap ranking it pays 10 times more to > win at the ring than in Monza. That's not true - once you get to a certain standard on the Ring it's very hard to knock seconds off your lap time. - Michael

yes okay, but it's IMPOSSIBLE to get 1 second at watkins for exmaple. I sent a mail to Uwe who answered very kindly that they have been thinking about it, they might do it but not just yet. the point is simple : If you are a "regular driver" you make about 1.30 at monza, 9.00 at the ring and 1.07 at watkins If you beat the WORLD RECORD at these tracks, for some reason you wake up one morning and you kick huttu's and weble's ass you will gain, FOR THE WORLD RECORD MONZA : handicap -5 WATKINS : Handicap -3 RING : Handicap -68 All I'm saying is that it's not really and completely fair, after all in F1 they don't get more points by winning monaco on the rain than by winning hungary on the dry, see my point ? MichaelJP <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message : [email hidden]... > In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > > > What I mean is that we all know it is MUCH harder to win 1 sec in Monzaas > > 10 seconds in Nurburg, and on the handicap ranking it pays 10 times moreto > > win at the ring than in Monza. > > That's not true - once you get to a certain standard on the Ring it's > very hard to knock seconds off your lap time. > > - Michael

That's definitely NOT true, the WHOLE point of GPL rank is to have a better handicap....thna the other guys, and to as close as possible (not too close for me) than the legends (huttu and weble for instance) Colin Harris <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message : vWZ85.18935$[email hidden]... > But it's not a competition against others, Txl, only against yourself!There

Quoted text (15 lines)

> are no prizes, merely the satisfaction of shaving the odd tenth or two off > the best time you've EVER done! Just writing it gets me all gooey!!! > > -- > Colin Harris > ColinHarris in N3/NL & VROC > Remove "your knickers" to reply > > > > > Txl <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > yes okay, but it's IMPOSSIBLE to get 1 second at watkins for exmaple. > > > > I sent a mail to Uwe who answered very kindly that they have been

thinking

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > about it, they might do it but not just yet. > > > > the point is simple : > > > > If you are a "regular driver" you make about 1.30 at monza, 9.00 at the > ring > > and 1.07 at watkins > > > > If you beat the WORLD RECORD at these tracks, for some reason you wake

up

Quoted text (32 lines)

> > one morning and you kick huttu's and weble's ass you will gain, FOR THE > > WORLD RECORD > > > > MONZA : handicap -5 > > WATKINS : Handicap -3 > > RING : Handicap -68 > > > > All I'm saying is that it's not really and completely fair, after all in > F1 > > they don't get more points by winning monaco on the rain than by winning > > hungary on the dry, see my point ? > > > > MichaelJP <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message : > > [email hidden]... > > > In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > > > > > > > What I mean is that we all know it is MUCH harder to win 1 sec in > Monza > > as > > > > 10 seconds in Nurburg, and on the handicap ranking it pays 10 times > more > > to > > > > win at the ring than in Monza. > > > > > > That's not true - once you get to a certain standard on the Ring it's > > > very hard to knock seconds off your lap time. > > > > > > - Michael > > > > > >

The one problem with your suggestion is that it assumes all tracks are of equal difficulty. They are not. That is why the Ring must count more than the Glen or any other track. Your system would void any track difference. Txl wrote:

Quoted text (22 lines)

> Hello, > > The thing is GREAT and i'll never thank the authors enough for it. > > But I think the way the handicap is calculated now could be improved and > made more fair. > > What I mean is that we all know it is MUCH harder to win 1 sec in Monza as > 10 seconds in Nurburg, and on the handicap ranking it pays 10 times more to > win at the ring than in Monza. > > So my idea is : Why not make a sort of proportional ranking, here would be > the calculation. > > If Sierra standard time for the ring would be 9.00.00 so that's 540 seconds > and my best laps would be 8.00.00 that would be 480 seconds, then instead of > making my handicap -60 on this track why not make it by calculating a > percentage value where sierra would be 100 and my lap would be worth around > 88.89, in monza if sierra is 1.28 that's 88 s and my time is 1.26 thats 86 > and my handicap ratio is 97 (or better 0.97). > > Discussion opened

I am not saying that the tracks are the same difficulty, but II say that gaining 10 % of your best lap at watkins should pay as much as gaining 10 % of your best time at the ring...and now it's not the case Daniel Frois <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message : [email hidden]... > The one problem with your suggestion is that it assumes all tracks are ofequal > difficulty. They are not. That is why the Ring must count more than theGlen or

Quoted text (12 lines)

> any other track. Your system would void any track difference. > > Txl wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > The thing is GREAT and i'll never thank the authors enough for it. > > > > But I think the way the handicap is calculated now could be improved and > > made more fair. > > > > What I mean is that we all know it is MUCH harder to win 1 sec in Monza

as > > 10 seconds in Nurburg, and on the handicap ranking it pays 10 times moreto > > win at the ring than in Monza. > > > > So my idea is : Why not make a sort of proportional ranking, here wouldbe > > the calculation. > > > > If Sierra standard time for the ring would be 9.00.00 so that's 540seconds > > and my best laps would be 8.00.00 that would be 480 seconds, theninstead of > > making my handicap -60 on this track why not make it by calculating a > > percentage value where sierra would be 100 and my lap would be wortharound > > 88.89, in monza if sierra is 1.28 that's 88 s and my time is 1.26 thats86 > > and my handicap ratio is 97 (or better 0.97). > > > > Discussion opened >

Exactly Ace, maybe just another argument to add: Just think of the Ring as, say, 5 tracks in GPL. Some people know part 1 good, others part 3, and so on. So if you suck at part 4, just learn that "track", eventually, you will have learnt 5 additional tracks, for each you make up 2 seconds, and *bang*, rockets you up in GPLRank by 10 seconds :) I like it as it is, even tho I suck at the Ring. But it's not the purpose of GPLRank to be on top of the world (we got Schubi for that), but rather to see what others do. I'm in several leagues, and I often go "spy" on the others to see what my chances in the next race might be :) cya Maaki -- ________________________________ Check out my home once in a while: http://home.t-online.de/home/mstiepel/ ........still a lot of work to be done ________________________________ Ace <[email hidden]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag: 8k0dfa$9ov$[email hidden]... > NO NO NO NO NO!!! > and NO again!!! > > Have you read the GPLRank FAQ? It explains there exactly why the system is > as it is. Why do people think the Nurburgring is so bloody *different*? So > what if it's a long lap? There is plenty of time to be made up there( by > some), because it takes a while to learn, and until you know the circuit, > it'll be difficult to go quickly. Come to think of it though, it's difficult > to be quick anywhere if you don't know the track, the 'Ring just takes > longer to learn. > Once you start doing good laps at the 'ring, you'll find that squeezing out > an extra second there can be just as hard, if not harder than Monza, because > the whole lap is very intense. Secondly, it's also easier to *loose* time at > the Nurburgring, because there are *so* many places to get it wrong (and in > a big way). > I sincerely hope GPLRank stays the way it is, which is the most logical and > sensible way to do it. > IMHO, people should spend less time complaining, and spend that time working > on their lap-times. Discussion closed. > -- > -Ace- > > Txl <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > Hello, > > > > The thing is GREAT and i'll never thank the authors enough for it. > > > > But I think the way the handicap is calculated now could be improved and > > made more fair. > > > > What I mean is that we all know it is MUCH harder to win 1 sec in Monza as > > 10 seconds in Nurburg, and on the handicap ranking it pays 10 times more > to > > win at the ring than in Monza. > > > > So my idea is : Why not make a sort of proportional ranking, here would be > > the calculation. > > > > If Sierra standard time for the ring would be 9.00.00 so that's 540 > seconds > > and my best laps would be 8.00.00 that would be 480 seconds, then instead > of > > making my handicap -60 on this track why not make it by calculating a > > percentage value where sierra would be 100 and my lap would be worth > around > > 88.89, in monza if sierra is 1.28 that's 88 s and my time is 1.26 thats 86 > > and my handicap ratio is 97 (or better 0.97). > > > > Discussion opened > > > > > >

No you can call this cup the "kinder cup" Uwe Schuerkamp <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message : [email hidden]... > On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 17:06:02 GMT, Ruud van Gaal <[email hidden]>wrote:

Quoted text (16 lines)

> I'm thinking about it. It wouldn't have many bells and whistles, > maybe just a nightly run to update the percentage rankings. > > I need a name for it though: "Weenies Cup"? ;-) > > > Bye for now, > > Uwe > > > > -- > Uwe Schuerkamp http://www.schuerkamp.de/ > uwe.schuerkamp at telemedia.de for direct mail (from: is spambox) > PGP Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

Well said Ace... seconded. Jan. =--- Ace wrote... > NO NO NO NO NO!!! > and NO again!!! > > Have you read the GPLRank FAQ? <snip> > I sincerely hope GPLRank stays the way it is, which is the most logicaland > sensible way to do it. > IMHO, people should spend less time complaining, and spend that timeworking > on their lap-times. Discussion closed. > -- > -Ace-

It's not an altogether bad idea, although I disagree with the original premise. Percent of lap-time is meaningful when comparing against another driver's times. I'm OK with the handicap system as it stands; I just want another column to glare at when I compare my laptimes one-on-one against another driver. A yardstick is a yardstick. I'm OK with having my --- ummmh--- inseam measuring what it measures. Some swear that girth counts more, for whatever that's worth. For me, the doing is what matters, and as they say, inseam is secondary to effectiveness. My game shines best when counting finishes in GP length events. Everything else is just practice; hot-lapping an empty track doesn't cut it for me, if you get my drift. Michael. "rik anthrax" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:v5T85.7605$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Nope. > I worked my ASS off getting my ring time down.....and my handicap. > You have the same opportunity. > This discussion is now ended. > Rik > > Txl <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > What I mean is that we all know it is MUCH harder to win 1 sec in Monza

as > > 10 seconds in Nurburg, and on the handicap ranking it pays 10 times more > to > > win at the ring than in Monza.

In the lastweeks I remember seeing a long post here about "are the GPL people intolerant", well i think I've just woken up some of the best specimen here. Let me put this straight. 1) I am not complaining, just expressing my point of vue, is that allowed ? 2) I have the feeling that you can improve and already very good product so I think I can HELP Uwe 3) On a more logical considertation the only flaw I see in the GPL rank as it is now is that it is more a NURBURG+SPA rank that a GLOBAL GPL rank, don"t bother about watkins glen, even if you lose 3 secs here make them up elsewhere, that's not the way it's supposed to be. I think GPL rank should be the OVERALL way of ranking us, not a SPECIFIC way on long tracks. On the other hand it forces people to play the Ring which was mostly ignored before by users, but maybe making the 2 classifications would be acceptable. I am ready to get flamed, no need to send me mails saying "NO WAY, I WORKED HARD AT THE RING . JUST DO THE SAME . DISCUSSION CLOSED", that sounds childlish to me.

If you love the rign so much for its difference than why don't you measure your best timle in monza.....on 6 laps instead on 1, you would have to be concentrated for about the the same time as for a ring lap... But I see your point, I am just expressing an IDEA Ace <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message : 8k0dfa$9ov$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> NO NO NO NO NO!!! > and NO again!!! > > Have you read the GPLRank FAQ? It explains there exactly why the system is > as it is. Why do people think the Nurburgring is so bloody *different*? So > what if it's a long lap? There is plenty of time to be made up there( by > some), because it takes a while to learn, and until you know the circuit, > it'll be difficult to go quickly. Come to think of it though, it's

difficult > to be quick anywhere if you don't know the track, the 'Ring just takes > longer to learn. > Once you start doing good laps at the 'ring, you'll find that squeezingout > an extra second there can be just as hard, if not harder than Monza,because > the whole lap is very intense. Secondly, it's also easier to *loose* timeat > the Nurburgring, because there are *so* many places to get it wrong (andin > a big way). > I sincerely hope GPLRank stays the way it is, which is the most logicaland > sensible way to do it. > IMHO, people should spend less time complaining, and spend that timeworking

Quoted text (13 lines)

> on their lap-times. Discussion closed. > -- > -Ace- > > Txl <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > Hello, > > > > The thing is GREAT and i'll never thank the authors enough for it. > > > > But I think the way the handicap is calculated now could be improved and > > made more fair. > > > > What I mean is that we all know it is MUCH harder to win 1 sec in Monza

as > > 10 seconds in Nurburg, and on the handicap ranking it pays 10 times more > to > > win at the ring than in Monza. > > > > So my idea is : Why not make a sort of proportional ranking, here wouldbe > > the calculation. > > > > If Sierra standard time for the ring would be 9.00.00 so that's 540 > seconds > > and my best laps would be 8.00.00 that would be 480 seconds, theninstead > of > > making my handicap -60 on this track why not make it by calculating a > > percentage value where sierra would be 100 and my lap would be worth > around > > 88.89, in monza if sierra is 1.28 that's 88 s and my time is 1.26 thats86

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > and my handicap ratio is 97 (or better 0.97). > > > > Discussion opened > > > > > >

ok, sorry for even thinking that I could have a reasonable discussion here, I won't do it again, I promise..... Hey guys, do you know that somebody is talking about PIRATE games in earlier posts, it's BAAAAAAAAAD Jim Dombrowski <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message : a8Y85.24703$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Txl wrote in message <[email hidden]>... > > >considertation the only flaw I see in the GPL rank as > >it is now is that it is more a NURBURG+SPA rank that a GLOBAL GPL > rank,..... > > > >I am ready to get flamed, no need to send me mails saying "NO WAY, I

WORKED > >HARD AT THE RING . JUST DO THE SAME . DISCUSSION CLOSED", that sounds > >childlish to me. > > > > Why don't you just start your own GPL rank and only include the tracksyour > good at? You want to discredit the ring and spa because you don't do well > there. Admit it. I'm sure you wouldn't be saying this stuff if you hadspent > the time others have at those tracks. > What if there was a simple 3/4 mile oval in the circuit? Would youthink > that should be treated equally to the Ring as well? Your half second > advantage there should be equal to someone else's 5 or 10 second lead atthe > Ring or Spa? > I suggested before that GPL rank would allow users to just select or > unselect the tracks they want or don't want in the handicap calculations. > Also be able to get the handicaps only under certain chassis. That way I > can eliminate all the Monza lovin Lotus drivers and you can see how you > would stand if the Ring and Spa weren't included. But that would just befor > dreaming. In the big picture , every mile of all tracks need to beincluded > equally to see the overall abilities of the driver. > These were just suggestions however and not complaints about anything > about GPL rank. I'm happy with what it is. I wouldn't dare say it hasflaws

Quoted text (9 lines)

> just because it doesn't suit my tastes or complain about something that I > didn't have to pay for. Something someone else put together on their own > time and is basicly a gift to the GPL community. That would be the > definition of childish. > > Jim D. > > >

It's there plainly for all to see in the FAQ. I have to agree with Ace earlier in the thread. Uwe did this out of pleasure. Not a penny did he make on it, and we should surely just accept how he designed it on such an issue. In an earlier thread I actually suggested a change, before someone says anything, but not something as fundamental as the setup of the rating. To me, someone saying that Uwe should have done to the very heart of the Rank in a different way smacks of ungratitude. Critics, much like eunuchs, can watch it, but can't do it. I have no plans to open a software company. -- Colin Harris ColinHarris in N3/NL & VROC Remove "your knickers" to reply Dan Kaps <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:RiP85.6106$[email hidden]... > Colin, > > I imagine the creators LIKE hearing suggestions from users about how the > program could be made better in thier eyes. It was, after all, written for > everyone's enjoyment. > > Some food for thought....When you open your own software company and tell > your users who make suggestions: "I didn't put a gun to your head...", don't > make any long-term plans. > > > > "Colin Harris" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:OYN85.18234$[email hidden]... > > Why not leave it up to the guy who took the time to make it? No one puts a > > gun to anyone's head and forces them to join.... > > > > -- > > Colin Harris > > ColinHarris in N3/NL & VROC > > Remove "your knickers" to reply > > > > > > > > > > Txl <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > Hello, > > > > > > The thing is GREAT and i'll never thank the authors enough for it. > > > > > > But I think the way the handicap is calculated now could be improved and > > > made more fair. > > > > > > What I mean is that we all know it is MUCH harder to win 1 sec in Monza > as > > > 10 seconds in Nurburg, and on the handicap ranking it pays 10 times more > > to > > > win at the ring than in Monza. > > > > > > So my idea is : Why not make a sort of proportional ranking, here would > be > > > the calculation. > > > > > > If Sierra standard time for the ring would be 9.00.00 so that's 540 > > seconds > > > and my best laps would be 8.00.00 that would be 480 seconds, then > instead > > of > > > making my handicap -60 on this track why not make it by calculating a > > > percentage value where sierra would be 100 and my lap would be worth > > around > > > 88.89, in monza if sierra is 1.28 that's 88 s and my time is 1.26 thats > 86 > > > and my handicap ratio is 97 (or better 0.97). > > > > > > Discussion opened > > > > > > > > > > > >

I agree as well. Cheers Phil -- F1 GPL Handicap: +66.44 secs F2 GPL Handicap: +159.57 secs St Eldred's Cup: -4.01 secs http://www.youpies.co.uk

Nope. I worked my ASS off getting my ring time down.....and my handicap. You have the same opportunity. This discussion is now ended. Rik Txl <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Hello, > > The thing is GREAT and i'll never thank the authors enough for it. > > But I think the way the handicap is calculated now could be improved and > made more fair. > > What I mean is that we all know it is MUCH harder to win 1 sec in Monza as > 10 seconds in Nurburg, and on the handicap ranking it pays 10 times more

to > win at the ring than in Monza. > > So my idea is : Why not make a sort of proportional ranking, here would be > the calculation. > > If Sierra standard time for the ring would be 9.00.00 so that's 540seconds > and my best laps would be 8.00.00 that would be 480 seconds, then insteadof > making my handicap -60 on this track why not make it by calculating a > percentage value where sierra would be 100 and my lap would be wortharound > 88.89, in monza if sierra is 1.28 that's 88 s and my time is 1.26 thats 86 > and my handicap ratio is 97 (or better 0.97). > > Discussion opened > >

U�ytkownik "Txl" <[email hidden]> napisa� w wiadomo�ci news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Hello, > > The thing is GREAT and i'll never thank the authors enough for it. > > But I think the way the handicap is calculated now could be improved and > made more fair. > > What I mean is that we all know it is MUCH harder to win 1 sec in Monza as > 10 seconds in Nurburg, and on the handicap ranking it pays 10 times more

to > win at the ring than in Monza. I agree percentage system would be more fair...... Gpl rank -44,45 Richie ( Piotr O. ) [email hidden] Icq 7510765 http://gpl.pulse.pdi.net http://oj.gad.pl

Txl wrote in message <[email hidden]>... >considertation the only flaw I see in the GPL rank as >it is now is that it is more a NURBURG+SPA rank that a GLOBAL GPLrank,..... >I am ready to get flamed, no need to send me mails saying "NO WAY, I WORKED >HARD AT THE RING . JUST DO THE SAME . DISCUSSION CLOSED", that sounds >childlish to me. Why don't you just start your own GPL rank and only include the tracks your good at? You want to discredit the ring and spa because you don't do well there. Admit it. I'm sure you wouldn't be saying this stuff if you had spent the time others have at those tracks. What if there was a simple 3/4 mile oval in the circuit? Would you think that should be treated equally to the Ring as well? Your half second advantage there should be equal to someone else's 5 or 10 second lead at the Ring or Spa? I suggested before that GPL rank would allow users to just select or unselect the tracks they want or don't want in the handicap calculations. Also be able to get the handicaps only under certain chassis. That way I can eliminate all the Monza lovin Lotus drivers and you can see how you would stand if the Ring and Spa weren't included. But that would just be for dreaming. In the big picture , every mile of all tracks need to be included equally to see the overall abilities of the driver. These were just suggestions however and not complaints about anything about GPL rank. I'm happy with what it is. I wouldn't dare say it has flaws just because it doesn't suit my tastes or complain about something that I didn't have to pay for. Something someone else put together on their own time and is basicly a gift to the GPL community. That would be the definition of childish. Jim D.

Txl wrote in message <[email hidden]>... >Hey guys, do you know that somebody is talking about PIRATE games inearlier >posts, it's BAAAAAAAAAD Cool, Can you do keel hulling in it? Jim D.

Well said Ace... seconded. Jan. =---

If I knew what you ment I could have answered...

But it's not a competition against others, Txl, only against yourself! There are no prizes, merely the satisfaction of shaving the odd tenth or two off the best time you've EVER done! Just writing it gets me all gooey!!! -- Colin Harris ColinHarris in N3/NL & VROC Remove "your knickers" to reply Txl <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > yes okay, but it's IMPOSSIBLE to get 1 second at watkins for exmaple. > > I sent a mail to Uwe who answered very kindly that they have been thinking > about it, they might do it but not just yet. > > the point is simple : > > If you are a "regular driver" you make about 1.30 at monza, 9.00 at the ring > and 1.07 at watkins > > If you beat the WORLD RECORD at these tracks, for some reason you wake up > one morning and you kick huttu's and weble's ass you will gain, FOR THE > WORLD RECORD > > MONZA : handicap -5 > WATKINS : Handicap -3 > RING : Handicap -68 > > All I'm saying is that it's not really and completely fair, after all in F1 > they don't get more points by winning monaco on the rain than by winning > hungary on the dry, see my point ? > > MichaelJP <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message : > [email hidden]... > > In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says... > > > > > What I mean is that we all know it is MUCH harder to win 1 sec in Monza > as > > > 10 seconds in Nurburg, and on the handicap ranking it pays 10 times more > to > > > win at the ring than in Monza. > > > > That's not true - once you get to a certain standard on the Ring it's > > very hard to knock seconds off your lap time. > > > > - Michael > >

"Txl" <[email hidden]> writes: > I think GPL rank should be the OVERALL way of ranking us, not a SPECIFIC way > on long tracks. There is no overall way of ranking us, whatever you invent will be specific in one way or another. Inventing a ranking system liked by everyone is as close to impossible as you will ever get. Imo, the current gplrank is great. The concept is simple and I believe the long tracks actually improves the ranking since it is much harder to drive a complete ring lap way above your limit without crashing than doing the same at e.g. watkins glen. _ Mats Lofkvist [email hidden]

On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 09:08:25 +0200, "Txl" <[email hidden]> wrote: >In the lastweeks I remember seeing a long post here about "are the GPL >people intolerant", well i think I've just woken up some of the best >specimen here. Perhaps it was a bit because this discussion was done a week or so ago. I even proposed something like you state, namely making each TRACK equally important. However, given time on all tracks, the time you do on the Ring does show how good you are a lot, and dividing the progress you make there would also be non-logical, in a sense, cause that would say "Your overall speed at the Ring is not valued as much as your overall speed at Monza". Uwe has taken the path to see GPL as 1 big track split up into different names. Which is good. In fact, he stated that TURNS are what racing is mostly about, and did some number tricks showing that the Ring contains 54% (or so) of the turns in the whole of GPL, so the Ring DESERVES the impact it has on your ranking. >Let me put this straight. > >1) I am not complaining, just expressing my point of vue, is that allowed ? Yup. ... >3) On a more logical considertation the only flaw I see in the GPL rank as >it is now is that it is more a NURBURG+SPA rank that a GLOBAL GPL rank, >don"t bother about watkins glen, even if you lose 3 secs here make them up >elsewhere, that's not the way it's supposed to be. You'll take those 3 secs gladly once you reach your limit on the Ring anyhow. But sure, a dual ranking system, a bit like St. Eldred's Cup, but percentage-wise, would be nice though. Ruud van Gaal MarketGraph / MachTech: http://www.marketgraph.nl Art: http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery

If the tracks aren't equal like everyone agree's then why should 10% of Watkins be equal to 10% of the ring? That 10% of the ring is much longer, takes more time and effort to master, why shouldn't it be recognized as so? The only time the tracks are equal is in a championship season. . Either you win or you don't. But GPL rank is not a measure of that. It's a measure of every mile in the entire circuit. You see some cars and drivers are better at tracks like Monza, some are better at tracks like the Ring. Even at the Ring, some are faster in the straight sections, and others are better in the curves. GPL rank takes into consideration every mile in the '67 season. It is a time trials competition. Not a measure of who wins the most races. The overall GPL rank handicap is like taking all the tracks and putting them in a blender and then sifting out the contents. Jim D. Txl wrote in message <[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (20 lines)

>I am not saying that the tracks are the same difficulty, but II say that >gaining 10 % of your best lap at watkins should pay as much as gaining 10 % >of your best time at the ring...and now it's not the case > > >Daniel Frois <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le message : >[email hidden]... >> The one problem with your suggestion is that it assumes all tracks are of >equal >> difficulty. They are not. That is why the Ring must count more than the >Glen or >> any other track. Your system would void any track difference. >> >> Txl wrote: >> >> > Hello, >> > >> > The thing is GREAT and i'll never thank the authors enough for it. >> > >> > But I think the way the handicap is calculated now could be improved

and >> > made more fair. >> > >> > What I mean is that we all know it is MUCH harder to win 1 sec in Monza >as >> > 10 seconds in Nurburg, and on the handicap ranking it pays 10 timesmore

Quoted text (22 lines)

>to >> > win at the ring than in Monza. >> > >> > So my idea is : Why not make a sort of proportional ranking, here would >be >> > the calculation. >> > >> > If Sierra standard time for the ring would be 9.00.00 so that's 540 >seconds >> > and my best laps would be 8.00.00 that would be 480 seconds, then >instead of >> > making my handicap -60 on this track why not make it by calculating a >> > percentage value where sierra would be 100 and my lap would be worth >around >> > 88.89, in monza if sierra is 1.28 that's 88 s and my time is 1.26 thats >86 >> > and my handicap ratio is 97 (or better 0.97). >> > >> > Discussion opened >> > >

You don't suck at all! Your PB at the 'ring is only ~1sec slower than mine. (OK, we both suck <vbg>) -- -Ace- Markus Stiepel <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8k272i$hmi$18$[email hidden]... <snip> > I like it as it is, even tho I suck at the Ring. But it's not the purpose of > GPLRank to be on top of the world (we got Schubi for that), but rather to > see what others do. I'm in several leagues, and I often go "spy" on the > others to see what my chances in the next race might be :) > > cya > Maaki

Then you're missing the point. Sure, it's interesting to see how you compare, but If that's the way you look at it, is'nt your suggestion to change the handicap system just an attempt to get higher up the leaderboard? I wondered what your times were like, so I looked on GPLRank, and, as I suspected, there's room for improvement at the 'ring, and I'm guessing you can't be bothered to make the effort. I could say the same for myself, at Monaco and Mexico, I hate those tracks, but I made the time to try and lower my time there. My goal is a negative handicap, wherever I rank, and I know I'll have to master all the tracks, like 'em or not. If I was racing for the title, I'd have to be competitive everywhere. -- -Ace- (GPLRank +4.88) Txl <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > That's definitely NOT true, the WHOLE point of GPL rank is to have a better > handicap....thna the other guys, and to as close as possible (not too close > for me) than the legends (huttu and weble for instance) > > > Colin Harris <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le > message : vWZ85.18935$[email hidden]... > > But it's not a competition against others, Txl, only against yourself! > There > > are no prizes, merely the satisfaction of shaving the odd tenth or two off > > the best time you've EVER done! Just writing it gets me all gooey!!!

Txl <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > If you love the rign so much for its difference than why don't you measure > your best timle in monza.....on 6 laps instead on 1, you would have to be > concentrated for about the the same time as for a ring lap... > > But I see your point, I am just expressing an IDEA >I just thought your idea was a bad one. 6 laps of monza has 6x6 corners, =36. and should take about 9 minutes. One lap of the ring has 174 corners, many on gradients, and should take from 8mins (very good lap) to 9mins (average). So, in the same amount of time, or longer, at monza, you still only do roughly 1/5 of the amount of turns at the Nurburgring. And, incidentally, My favourite track is Zandvoort. I don't particularly like the 'ring, but I do know it's one of the most rewarding to get right. -- -Ace-

Seal Culling, perhaps? -- -Ace- Txl <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > If I knew what you ment I could have answered... > > > > Cool, Can you do keel hulling in it? > > > > Jim D. > > > > > > > >

On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 17:06:02 GMT, Ruud van Gaal <[email hidden]> wrote: >Uwe has taken the path to see GPL as 1 big track split up into >different names. Which is good. In fact, he stated that TURNS are what >racing is mostly about, and did some number tricks showing that the >Ring contains 54% (or so) of the turns in the whole of GPL, so the >Ring DESERVES the impact it has on your ranking. > Just to get the credits right: That detailed analysis was done by Don Scurlock, not myself. >But sure, a dual ranking system, a bit like St. Eldred's Cup, but >percentage-wise, would be nice though. > I'm thinking about it. It wouldn't have many bells and whistles, maybe just a nightly run to update the percentage rankings. I need a name for it though: "Weenies Cup"? ;-) Bye for now, Uwe -- Uwe Schuerkamp http://www.schuerkamp.de/ uwe.schuerkamp at telemedia.de for direct mail (from: is spambox) PGP Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

"David Buttery" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> On Thu 06 Jul 2000 06:14:48am, Michael Young wrote: > > <snip> > >inseam > <snip> > > Inseam?

in-seam \'in-,se^-m\ n (ca. 1908) :the seam on the inside of the leg of a pair of pants; also :the length of this seam Measure whatever you like, using whatever standards of measure you like. The measuring has no effect on quantity being measured. Measuring the length of a man's pants leg gives you a only fair idea of his height (and says nothing at all about his stature). I mean only to say that any measurement system is flawed if it doesn't directly measure the quantity you wish to know more about. Small men, as a rule, generally dislike being measured publicly. (Or is that pubicly?) Michael.

In article <[email hidden]>, Daniel Frois <[email hidden]> writes: >The one problem with your suggestion is that it assumes all tracks are of >equal >difficulty. They are not. That is why the Ring must count more than the Glen >or >any other track. Your system would void any track difference. Actually, I think the tracks ARE of equal difficulty. The Ring is just longer, that's all. There are difficult turns at other tracks. The chicane at Monaco, the hairpins at Mosport and Mexico, Parabolica at Monza if Surtees is on your gearbox<g>. One turn is the same as another, for comparison's sake... Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +70.45 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <[email hidden]>, "Txl" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>Hello, > >The thing is GREAT and i'll never thank the authors enough for it. > >But I think the way the handicap is calculated now could be improved and >made more fair. > >What I mean is that we all know it is MUCH harder to win 1 sec in Monza as >10 seconds in Nurburg, and on the handicap ranking it pays 10 times more to >win at the ring than in Monza. > >So my idea is : Why not make a sort of proportional ranking, here would be >the calculation.

Been there, done that... You must have missed the disscussion. :) Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +70.45 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

"Kinder" as in Children? (My German is not that great) but the Whingers Cup seems far more appropriate. -- -Ace- (GPLRank +4.88) Txl <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > No you can call this cup the "kinder cup" > > Uwe Schuerkamp <[email hidden]> a �crit dans le > message : [email hidden]... > > On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 17:06:02 GMT, Ruud van Gaal <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > I'm thinking about it. It wouldn't have many bells and whistles, > > maybe just a nightly run to update the percentage rankings. > > > > I need a name for it though: "Weenies Cup"? ;-) > > > > > > Bye for now, > > > > Uwe

In article <[email hidden]>, Txl <[email hidden]> writes >I am not saying that the tracks are the same difficulty, but II say that >gaining 10 % of your best lap at watkins should pay as much as gaining 10 >% >of your best time at the ring...and now it's not the case > But gaining 10% on your best time at the ring requires 10 times as much effort. Improving Watkins by 10% requires concentration for just over a minute involving just 7 turns. Doing the same at the Ring requires 9 minutes or less (probably <g>) and 176 turns. A whole lot more concentration which is reflected in the improvement timewise. By the way, although my GPLrank is pretty good, I can see that there are those ahead of me just because they have done excellent Ring times. It is up to me to do the same if I want to overhaul them. If they can do it, then so can I. :) <snip> -- Peter Ives - (AKA Ivington) No person's opinions can be said to be more correct than another's, because each is the sole judge of his or her own experience.

On Thu 06 Jul 2000 06:14:48am, Michael Young wrote: <snip> >inseam<snip> Inseam? -- David. (GPLRank handicap: +30.02) "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really." (Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh)

<snip> <snip> Inseam? -- David. (GPLRank handicap: +30.02) "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really." (Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh)

On Sat 08 Jul 2000 04:30:51am, Michael Young wrote: >in-seam \'in-,se^-m\ n >(ca. 1908) >:the seam on the inside of the leg of a pair of pants; also >:the length of this seam<snip> Ah, right. We just call it "inside leg" in the UK. -- David. (GPLRank handicap: +29.93) "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really." (Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh)