4456 posts shown.
George Miller2 said:Honestly, Red Bull was the dominant car yesterday.
If nothing else, you can tell by how AlphaTauri did... Has Tsunoda even made it into Third Quarter this season? Not that I recall..
Verstappen, Perez, Gasly, Tsunoda... All those cars had massive potential.
Kind of reminds me of those old Racing Point results.
Sam Clark75 said:Yeah, because everyone expects Valtteri to just roll over and move aside at every single chance so Lujo can actually stay relevant for a title shot—or whatever else the team that dumped him owes him. 🙄
Raymond Anderson4 said:Toto thinks it shouldn't have happened—that Max getting that opening on the outside was a mistake.
Richard Ross11 said:What a complete joke this Bottas guy is...
ruggedhawk20 said:You actually hoping for something!?
You're a moderator. You've got all the tools you need so you don't have to "hope"—you just make a threat and the users fall in line.
Regular users like us are stuck with nothing but hope, but not you.
graniteharbor502 said:I'm calling it now: absolute chaos at Turn 1, mostly driven by the Mercedes and Red Bull drivers.
wiredseal7 said:I'm in shock. It’s wild how much they flipped things around in qualifying compared to the practice sessions.
James Harris34 said:Lewis Hamilton is only still in this title fight because Max dropped 75 points in Azerbaijan, the United Kingdom, and Canada (through no fault of his own). If those points hadn't vanished, the championship would have been decided ages ago.
graniteharbor502 said:Daniel Ricciardo bailed on Red Bull Racing once he realized there was nothing left for him there besides riding Max Verstappen's coattails.
Roger Wright94 said:Lewis Hamilton (maxf1.net):
"I think I'm mentally tougher than I've ever been," added Hamilton, now in his 15th season of Formula 1.
"And I think that's a huge part of the whole story. I feel like I've been mentally stronger for a long time, but I've become even more resilient."
So, Lewis is better than ever. Which obviously means it's the car.
frozenheron7 said:Same here. Mercedes is still showing some signs of life, but it’s purely because of Lewis Hamilton's talent. Red Bull is clearly the better car. I don't see any way Mercedes or Lewis could win the championship this year, unless Red Bull suffers some massive, unexpected disaster.
shadowstag10 said:Just so we’re all clear—the only reason I stepped up to lead this whole mess was because everyone was losing their minds over how fast the points were being calculated after the Race. And now? Now you’ve got me stuck in this impossible spot where if I decide nobody gets the PP—even though TBF1D is totally right, and honestly, has every reason to walk away from the game entirely—I’m the bad guy. On the flip side, silentbear49 couldn't care less, yet I’ve got Fortin, Amanda Kelly, and darkmarlin16 breathing down my neck if I give Valtteri Bottas the PP. So, fine. I'm giving Valtteri Bottas the PP because that’s what the rules say, and that hasn't changed regardless of any recent tweaks.
As for next season, I’m seriously weighing whether I even want to deal with this headache again.
graniteharbor502 said:8. What happens if a competitor fails to submit a fresh prediction, or perhaps submits one only after the official deadline has already passed? In such an instance, the "Joker" rule will be triggered. You see, while it is mandatory for every participant to provide a new prediction for every single race, the rules allow for three "Jokers" per season; these are activated automatically whenever someone misses a submission, at which point their most recent official prediction will be credited for those specific races. However, once a player has exhausted all three of their "Jokers," no further points will be awarded to them, meaning they would be required to submit a new prediction if they truly wish to remain in the competition.
If a competitor fails to submit a fresh prediction for two consecutive races, their teammate is granted the authority to remove them from the team if they see fit; should this occur, that individual will simply proceed through the rest of the competition as a solo entrant, unless they explicitly state otherwise.
9. Is there any clarity regarding the protocols for submitting predictions? To ensure everything remains orderly, a participant may only post their predictions using the specific username they utilized when registering for the competition—unless, of course, an administrator has seen fit to modify that handle. Furthermore, we must establish that any participant facing a ban is ineligible to participate in the specific round during which the ban is active. This regulation applies to anyone whose suspension lasts at least until the submission deadline for that particular round; however, an exception exists if the individual managed to submit a fresh prediction prior to the ban being enforced, in which case that prediction will be honored regardless of their status. Additionally, should a banned participant possess an unused Joker prediction and fail to submit a standard entry for the round in question, that Joker prediction will still be applied to their score, just as it would for any other competitor. Does this sufficiently outline the expectations for everyone involved?
10. Is it not a fascinating thought that competitors might move between teams without any restriction whatsoever? In the event that such a transfer occurs, one must consider how the scoring functions; specifically, a competitor does not carry over the collective team points earned during their tenure with a previous squad, though their individual points remain entirely intact. Does this not seem like a fair distinction to maintain? This same logic applies to those who have been eliminated from the competition as well. Essentially, team points begin accumulating anew from the very moment a fresh team is established, whereas a simple change in a team's name carries no weight regarding the point totals. Each team is permitted two name changes throughout the duration of the season, yet prior to the start of the season, they may alter their designation as often as they see fit. Is there not a certain freedom in that level of flexibility?
11. If a participant chooses to include a driver in their prediction who doesn't actually appear on the official FIA entry list for a specific race, will they receive any points for that selection? The answer is a firm no; if the driver isn't part of the official roster, they simply don't count. Furthermore, one cannot claim points for drivers omitted from their submitted ranking, regardless of how logical or seemingly necessary it might feel to have left a specific individual out. The scoring process follows the exact positions a participant assigns to their chosen drivers; therefore, should there be a clerical error or a typo in those numerical rankings, the standings will be calculated strictly according to the numbers provided, however flawed they may be. If certain positions are left blank, no points will be awarded for them. Additionally, if a participant happens to list the same position number or the same driver more than once, all points associated with those duplicate entries will be forfeited entirely. What occurs if someone lists more drivers than would normally be expected to start a race under standard circumstances? In such an instance, no points will be granted for those surplus drivers or extra positions. For any driver where a position hasn't been specified, they shall be treated as NOP. However, if the entire ranking is submitted without any position numbers at all, the list will be processed as a ranking without any NOPs. Is it not essential that we maintain this level of precision to ensure fairness for everyone involved?
12. Is it not worth noting that copying someone else's prediction is strictly prohibited? It is a matter we take quite seriously, though we only move to investigate and issue penalties if a participant files a formal complaint, and even then, only once the deadline for submitting predictions on this thread has officially passed. For those wondering what constitutes plagiarism in this context, it is defined as posting more than 75% of the drivers—including all groups, rounded up to the nearest whole number—in the exact same positions as another prediction already submitted for that specific race. Naturally, any previous predictions being utilized as Jokers are excluded from this calculation. Should anyone be found guilty of such copying, the penalty is straightforward: the prediction will simply be disregarded entirely.
13. How exactly are the standings calculated? Well, they are determined strictly based on the official results released by the FIA immediately following the conclusion of the race—that initial preliminary order is what counts. Any subsequent corrections or adjustments made by the FIA after that moment are simply not taken into account for our purposes. As for the Non-Points scorers, we consider any driver listed on the official FIA entry list who fails to secure a finishing position, regardless of whether their status is marked as a DNF, NC, or Retired. Furthermore, if we look at the standard FIA regulations, a driver is technically considered to have retired if they complete less than 90% of the total race distance. And of course, the race itself consists of however many laps the FIA deems necessary, whether they decide that through their standard procedure or via some extraordinary ruling.
Drivers who fail to qualify during the qualifying sessions and therefore do not participate in the race will be calculated as NOP, provided they were officially included on the FIA entry list.
3. Should any controversial situation arise during the competition that isn't explicitly covered by the specific points within these Regulations, the Race Director shall make the final call, relying upon common sense and adhering to the fundamental moral principle of fair play. These Regulations take effect upon their publication within the Championship thread designated for rules and standings, though they may be subject to amendments if, as the season progresses, it becomes evident that such changes are absolutely necessary to ensure the smooth and effective operation of the competition.
4. It remains possible to replace the Race Director at any point during the competition, should a majority of the competitors elect a new director who is willing to accept the position. In much the same manner, any disputed rules may be modified, though under no circumstances can such changes be applied retroactively to previous events.
Gregory Brown94 said:It's pretty obvious there’s no real leadership here. Your championship needs a solid set of rules that don't necessarily have to mirror the FIA rulebook.
For instance, you shouldn't be calling it "best in qualifying" instead of just "PP." You need to stick to that. Drivers who have a DNS, get disqualified from qualifying, or take grid penalties aren't legitimate PP winners because that's not what PP means—it signifies the best starting position. A DNS doesn't give you the best starting position since you aren't actually at the front of the grid when the lights go out.
And regarding the FL, it would honestly be better to just count the absolute fastest lap, since that's the only true fastest lap of the race. What seems to be confusing everyone is—well, let me rephrase that—according to F1, a driver earns 1 point for the fastest lap if they finish in the Top10, but that simply means they are the legitimate winner of that point, regardless of the fact that a driver outside the Top10 might actually hold the absolute fastest lap time of the race.
I honestly can't believe these basic things aren't included in your rulebook.
graniteharbor502 said:The race director ultimately holds the power when things get messy, and frankly, that is exactly what we are facing right now. We have a genuine problem on our hands. The current rule regarding the PP isn't formulated with enough clarity, which has understandably left several folks on the forums feeling quite confused. It feels as though we need to take decisive action and refine it; after all, shouldn't the entire goal of this game be centered around clarity and transparency? Shouldn't we strive for a system where everything is crystal clear rather than one that relies so heavily on subjective interpretation? Up until this point, we haven't explicitly specified which document serves as the ultimate authority for the PP category. Therefore, we have developed a proposed set of rules that defines this distinction very clearly.
graniteharbor502 said:If we are going to stick strictly to the letter of the law, then I must insist that the points for Monaco be revised.
It is always such an elegant thing when we have a concrete document to refer to, isn't it? The FIA's preliminary results cover everything, including the FL (which isn't necessarily the fastest lap of the entire race, but rather the fastest lap among those scoring points), yet we find no mention of the PP there. The closest thing we have are the qualifying results, which you all refuse to recognize, despite the fact that they clearly state the PP lap.
The elegant way to handle this is to refer to an official document. The FIA's preliminary results cover everything, including FL (which isn't necessarily the fastest lap of the race, but the fastest lap among those scoring points), but we don't have PP listed there. The closest thing is the qualifying results, which you refuse to acknowledge even though they clearly state the PP lap.
shadowstag10 said:That argument against vividlynx68 doesn't really hold water because on the official results, Leclerc is listed under DNS, meaning he *is* on the list.
For NOP purposes, any driver on the FIA entry list who fails to secure a finishing position counts—regardless of whether they are marked DNF, NC, or Ret...
Honestly, I don't see the point in arguing this further—some people are pulling one way, others the other, and both sides have valid points.
Since you all seem to agree that I'm being too harsh, nobody gets the PP for this race. From the next one until the end of the season, we’ll be using the list provided by stormybadger8 (Final starting grid), so please update Article 2 to reflect that.
It'll be easy enough to just tweak the rule for next season.
shadowstag10 said:But it clearly wasn't "loud and clear" before (even if it is now), considering like 7 people—which is basically half the group?!—voted for Hamilton to take Pole position, despite the fact we've known since Thursday he had a penalty.
shadowstag10 said:Turkish GP results are live at this link:
Turkish GP
Points have been logged, but without accounting for Bottas taking Pole position.
Jason Parker2 and TBF1D both think—and honestly, I get it—that even though we’ve got Hamilton in the mix, Bottas deserves the credit for Pole.
I need everyone else to weigh in here. If we hit a majority consensus, I'll give the Pole position points to Bottas; otherwise, we’re sticking with what’s already down.
silentbear49, Amanda Kelly, darkmarlin16, and cosmicridge5 (two out of four for changing the score)
You guys have until Sunday at 11:59 PM to make your voices heard. And don't even try the "I didn't see this" excuse—if you stay silent, I'm counting it as a "no" and leaving things as they are.