F1RWRS -- 2014 Season

[FMecha]

^I refer you to this post.

[TomWazzleshaw]

By the way; I have a new rule which I don´t think needs voting; as there´s a cap on top power, there should be a cap on low reliability to avoid any team buying all possible reliability and setting it at 0, making the car totally reliable. We should set a limit on this to 2000.

Sounds like a plan. MRT agree with this proposal. We need to have some artificial luck involved afterall

I will probably make no changes.

And who exactly made you a team owner again?

[Aerospeed]

By the way; I have a new rule which I don´t think needs voting; as there´s a cap on top power, there should be a cap on low reliability to avoid any team buying all possible reliability and setting it at 0, making the car totally reliable. We should set a limit on this to 2000.

That's a brilliant idea (though with these cars it would take about a bajillion credits to do so), and it needs to be about 3000 so that a couple of cars aren't bulletproof. I don't know how much difference the numbers make so you could probably make a better judgment about that.

[SuperAguri]

I would like to see an inverse relationship between the bhp rating and the minimum reliability. For example a baseline limit of say 1500 and 100 points per 10bhp over 600bhp...

[FMecha]

I would like to see an inverse relationship between the bhp rating and the minimum reliability. For example a baseline limit of say 1500 and 100 points per 10bhp over 600bhp...

But wouldn't that discourage upgrades?

And IMO we should continue talking this in F1RTA thread.

[TomWazzleshaw]

By the way; I have a new rule which I don´t think needs voting; as there´s a cap on top power, there should be a cap on low reliability to avoid any team buying all possible reliability and setting it at 0, making the car totally reliable. We should set a limit on this to 2000.

That's a brilliant idea (though with these cars it would take about a bajillion credits to do so), and it needs to be about 3000 so that a couple of cars aren't bulletproof. I don't know how much difference the numbers make so you could probably make a better judgment about that.

For future reference, my handy performance calculation program says 2000 = 89% reliability whilst 3000 = 80% reliability. Make of that what you will

[Aerond]

By the way; I have a new rule which I don´t think needs voting; as there´s a cap on top power, there should be a cap on low reliability to avoid any team buying all possible reliability and setting it at 0, making the car totally reliable. We should set a limit on this to 2000.

That's a brilliant idea (though with these cars it would take about a bajillion credits to do so), and it needs to be about 3000 so that a couple of cars aren't bulletproof. I don't know how much difference the numbers make so you could probably make a better judgment about that.

For future reference, my handy performance calculation program says 2000 = 89% reliability whilst 3000 = 80% reliability. Make of that what you will

I don´t mind if it´s 2500 or 3000, either. That would be perfectly fine with me.

[TomWazzleshaw]

2500-3000? Sounds good to me. MRT will accept this proposal on the basis that it'll improve the spectacle in the long-term. It'll also balance out the difference between the F1 and the F2 cars in some strange roundabout way. Eventually.

[RonDenisDeletraz]

That's a brilliant idea (though with these cars it would take about a bajillion credits to do so), and it needs to be about 3000 so that a couple of cars aren't bulletproof. I don't know how much difference the numbers make so you could probably make a better judgment about that.

For future reference, my handy performance calculation program says 2000 = 89% reliability whilst 3000 = 80% reliability. Make of that what you will

I don´t mind if it´s 2500 or 3000, either. That would be perfectly fine with me.

I personally think the reliability should be higher, just my opinion.

[TomWazzleshaw]

For future reference, my handy performance calculation program says 2000 = 89% reliability whilst 3000 = 80% reliability. Make of that what you will

I don´t mind if it´s 2500 or 3000, either. That would be perfectly fine with me.

I personally think the reliability should be higher, just my opinion.

In real terms, 3000 reliability points should equal about 3-4 retirements every year per car, in theory. In practice however, it's a whole different ballgame.

[Klon]

I say 1000 would make for an acceptable sum, that would mean two retirements all season. That is at current F1 levels, just enough to occasionally matter. I for my part would be more concerned with limiting reliabilty to the top because of how the system works, so I'd say we have not more than 16000 reliability.

[Phoenix]

I say 1000 would make for an acceptable sum, that would mean two retirements all season. That is at current F1 levels, just enough to occasionally matter.

I don't see it, because if it's indeed only two retirements in practice, whatever team that enjoys such a level of reliability as well as a good engine can end up creaming the championship. 2500-3000 is about right.

[AndreaModa]

I'm happy with a reliability limit of 3000.

And just to re-iterate in case anyone doesn't yet know, Jones Racing will keep their existing chassis and engine, that being the Minardi M197 and Ford HBD VI.

[RonDenisDeletraz]

Autodynamics would prefer the originally proposed reliability limit of 2000.

[SuperAguri]

How come no one has done a one word season review for the teams and drivers, like the podcast one word reviews.

[Aerond]

I would do it, but I prefer someone with a wider vocabulary than me.

[DemocalypseNow]

How come no one has done a one word season review for the teams and drivers, like the podcast one word reviews.

Stashed away in remotely located hard drives in Scotland and Portugal there are rumoured to be audio recordings of a mid-season one word F1RWRS review...