Grand Prix Rejects

Ataxia wrote:AndreaModa, you gave your blessing for it to use the Jones name, what chassis number would you like to give it?

Ah yes, you're spot on. The 114 will be the 2018 AR1 car which means the F3 car will be the Jones 115.

To anyone thinking "but how should the 2018 Canon restructure be explained", here's something: http://formularejects.com/wiki/Formula_ ... _backstory

Nuppiz wrote:To anyone thinking "but how should the 2018 Canon restructure be explained", here's something: http://formularejects.com/wiki/Formula_ ... _backstory

So... does this mean F1RWRS is dead? Will the 2017 season be completed? What are the immediate implications?

dr-baker wrote:

Nuppiz wrote:To anyone thinking "but how should the 2018 Canon restructure be explained", here's something: http://formularejects.com/wiki/Formula_ ... _backstory

So... does this mean F1RWRS is dead? Will the 2017 season be completed? What are the immediate implications?

F1RWRS isn't dead. The season will finish as planned, and F1RWRS will simply change name to ARWS for 2018.

At least that's what I've gathered.

tommykl wrote:

dr-baker wrote:

Nuppiz wrote:To anyone thinking "but how should the 2018 Canon restructure be explained", here's something: http://formularejects.com/wiki/Formula_ ... _backstory

So... does this mean F1RWRS is dead? Will the 2017 season be completed? What are the immediate implications?

F1RWRS isn't dead. The season will finish as planned, and F1RWRS will simply change name to ARWS for 2018.

At least that's what I've gathered.

That is exactly what is happening.

I can't believe it's that hard to work out!

AndreaModa wrote:I can't believe it's that hard to work out!

Sometimes I can be a bit slow on the uptake, as I am sure regulars on here have worked out by now....

So, if you've seen the ARWS Pre-Qualfying results from Bathurst, you'll probably note that 4 drivers failed to set a time. Not because of a crash, or mechanical failure, or anything that a team owner could control in any way, but simply because GP2 did decide not send those drivers out until it was too late for them to set a time. Maybe I'm alone in this, but quite frankly, this is a ridiculous and unacceptable situation.

It's obvious that the time allotted for Pre-Q needs to be extended. Who agrees with me?

Salamander wrote:It's obvious that the time allotted for Pre-Q needs to be extended. Who agrees with me?

*Raises hand*.

My cars suffered from this a couple of times last season, so I know how frustrating it is.

Salamander wrote:So, if you've seen the ARWS Pre-Qualfying results from Bathurst, you'll probably note that 4 drivers failed to set a time. Not because of a crash, or mechanical failure, or anything that a team owner could control in any way, but simply because GP2 did decide not send those drivers out until it was too late for them to set a time. Maybe I'm alone in this, but quite frankly, this is a ridiculous and unacceptable situation.

It's obvious that the time allotted for Pre-Q needs to be extended. Who agrees with me?

I hopefully won't have to bother with PQ again this year, but I agree anyway. It's just frustrating if you DNPQ because the game didn't send out your car in time. Please extend the pre-qualifying time to avoid this.

My suggestion, if we are to go ahead and push this, is to mandate that all sessions must be at least 30 minutes. We saw the same thing happening in qualifying for Adelaide too, and I really don't care at all that there is an extra session - the back of the grid was populated almost entirely by the cars which didn't manage to set a time in both sessions.

So I say if we are going to do this, we push through a rule that affects both PreQ and Q.

pi314159 wrote:

Salamander wrote:So, if you've seen the ARWS Pre-Qualfying results from Bathurst, you'll probably note that 4 drivers failed to set a time. Not because of a crash, or mechanical failure, or anything that a team owner could control in any way, but simply because GP2 did decide not send those drivers out until it was too late for them to set a time. Maybe I'm alone in this, but quite frankly, this is a ridiculous and unacceptable situation.

It's obvious that the time allotted for Pre-Q needs to be extended. Who agrees with me?

I hopefully won't have to bother with PQ again this year, but I agree anyway. It's just frustrating if you DNPQ because the game didn't send out your car in time. Please extend the pre-qualifying time to avoid this.

I did notice this problem when I tested qualifying for my own series in Grand Prix 2. I would reccomend to set the time to at least 30 minutes, though I would check each course beforehand to see if 30 minutes will be enough.

Salamander wrote:So, if you've seen the ARWS Pre-Qualfying results from Bathurst, you'll probably note that 4 drivers failed to set a time. Not because of a crash, or mechanical failure, or anything that a team owner could control in any way, but simply because GP2 did decide not send those drivers out until it was too late for them to set a time. Maybe I'm alone in this, but quite frankly, this is a ridiculous and unacceptable situation.

It's obvious that the time allotted for Pre-Q needs to be extended. Who agrees with me?

I also agree with this. It wasn't much of an issue last season, as Gillet weren't even close to prequalification anyway, but now that Walsh is regularly in the top eight but Moll can't set a single lap time, it's getting extremely frustrating.

Yeah, I'm in agreement here. I can imagine it's supremely frustrating, and the interests of fairness the session should be longer.

Well, there's enough interested parties at this point that a serious, structured plan for a vote can be put into place.

What I am looking for a straight answer to is this;

Should the lengths of pre-race sessions in ARWS be extended?

A. Both pre-qualifying, and both qualifying sessions, should be extended to at least 30 minutes.
B. Just Pre-Qualifying should be extended to at least 30 minutes.
C. No changes are required to the length of pre-race sessions.

I will consider the motion for B passed if the combination of votes for A & B reaches at least 11, so feel free to vote for A without worrying that neither of the proposals will be successful.

Option A
10 - Voeckler, Gauthier, Jones, PAE, MRT, NRE, Rosenforth, Venturi, Blokkmonsta, RLR

Option B
4 - Fusion, Kjellerup, Gillet, Mecha

Option C
0

I vote for motion A.

I vote for option B, because I feel having two qualifying sessions cancels out the need to make them longer.

I vote for option B. Not setting a time isn't that much of a problem with two combined sessions.

Option B for me as well, keeps the grids a bit mixed while ensuring a fair pre-qualifying session.

A for me.

Option A for me

I vote option A

I vote A.

I vote for A.

I'll pick Option B.

I vote option A.

I vote for option A.

Still waiting for the seven following teams to make their opinion heard regarding the poll above;

Simpson Motorsports (MinardiFan)
Plus One Kingfisher (pasta_maldonado)
Revolution Engineering (Shizuka)
Kamaha Motorsports (SuperAguri)
Rob Lomas Racing (roblomas)
Tassie Racing (HawkAussie)
Union Saver Developments (SeedStriker)

Two more votes for Option A would see it pass. Can the collective effort of the AutoReject Teams Association see it over the line?

I vote option A.

The poll has been open for a week now, and given how unlikely it will be for the scores to draw level at 10-10 (the vote has been open for an appropriate length of time to establish which teams will vote in the end at all), I feel comfortable in declaring that Option A has won the vote.

Therefore, the AutoReject Teams Association recommends to the ARWS organising body that pre-qualifying and both qualifying sessions should be extended to at least 30 minutes each. Given that 100% of those who voted did so at minimum in favour of extending Pre-Q to 30 minutes, we expect this section of change to be implemented in time for the next race at Monza.

Sorry I didn't reply earlier. Me too go for option A.

In the past we have managed to do tests between races in ARWS1, now Aerond sneaked in a rule change a few weeks ago asking that we give at least one races notice before we do this. As this is quite a big ruie change and not on the rules in the Wiki, do you think it should have been run past ARTA?

SuperAguri wrote:In the past we have managed to do tests between races in ARWS1, now Aerond sneaked in a rule change a few weeks ago asking that we give at least one races notice before we do this. As this is quite a big ruie change and not on the rules in the Wiki, do you think it should have been run past ARTA?

I don't test often, and even when I do I'm not doing it on a short notice. As a fellow series organiser I also understand Aerond's point behind this rule change.

However, it's still a major rule change and Aerond should've at least consulted the teams before implementing it.

SuperAguri wrote:In the past we have managed to do tests between races in ARWS1, now Aerond sneaked in a rule change a few weeks ago asking that we give at least one races notice before we do this. As this is quite a big ruie change and not on the rules in the Wiki, do you think it should have been run past ARTA?

I think he should have consulted the teams first before implementing it as well. For people who barely have time to post their testing schedules this is unfair.

I don't see the problem; having the tests this way ensures that there's a clear cut-off point to organise things. It saves Aerond from a barrage of people asking "wait can I just organise this test first..." a few minutes prior to a race weekend. We don't need to be consulted on something so trivial.

Although the rules on the Wiki should be updated (at the first possible moment) to reflect such a change.So it is not something buried on page 17 of a 32 page thread.

Due to semi-official canon master Salamander buggering off the forums for an unspecified amount of time and the way how certain canon series are being run coming under fire, it has been brought up that we need someone or something to control what is canon. One idea that has been brought up in the IRC channel is a three- or four-man commission representing the different facets of the canon with an additional "neutral" member.

Before this is planned any further, I'd like to hear the people's opinion about the matter, including how said members should be chosen. Of course you can also suggest other forms of canon control.

Nuppiz wrote:Due to semi-official canon master Salamander buggering off the forums for an unspecified amount of time and the way how certain canon series are being run coming under fire, it has been brought up that we need someone or something to control what is canon. One idea that has been brought up in the IRC channel is a three- or four-man commission representing the different facets of the canon with an additional "neutral" member.

Before this is planned any further, I'd like to hear the people's opinion about the matter, including how said members should be chosen. Of course you can also suggest other forms of canon control.

Agreed, really. If we take ARWS and F1 as the main canonical attractions, then I believe that Aerond and Klon would be good fits for the panel, as well as someone independent with a good head; someone like pi314159, tommykl or kevinbotz would work, since none own present-day series and are very capable.

I am very much in favour of a small council deciding the direction of the canon, that is the best route. As I have been "nominated" by ataxia, I will not talk about its potential members - although I want to stress it should have at least one member who has an eye for details.

I'd certainly be inclined to second the sentiments expressed thus far regarding the formation of a canon oversight panel.