- 6,392
- Pennsylvania
- wat3rm370n
@daddyo845
Thanks!
Do you have a time for the Miata? You mentioned testing it, but I don't see a time.
@LongbowX
Any chance you can run the Low Power list?
0:00.000 -- Triumph Spitfire 1500 74 =
0:00.000 -- Honda S800 '66 =
0:00.000 -- Suzuki Cappuccino (EA11R) '91 =
0:00.000 -- Nissan CUBE EX (FF/CVT) '02 =
0:00.000 -- Toyota Yaris F (J) '99 =
0:00.000 -- Daihatsu Copen Active Top '02 =
0:00.000 -- Fiat 500 1.2 8V Lounge SS '08 =
0:00.000 -- Nissan Be-1 '87 =
0:00.000 -- Daihatsu MOVE SR-XX 4WD '97 =
0:00.000 -- Mazda Autozam AZ-1 '92 =
0:00.000 -- Mini Cooper 1.3i '98 =
0:00.000 -- Nissan SKYLINE Sport Coupe (BLRA-3) '62 =
0:00.000 -- Nissan PAO '89 =
0:00.000 -- Ford Ka '01 =
0:00.000 -- Suzuki WAGON R RR '98 =
0:00.000 -- Volvo 240 GLT Estate '88 =
@GTsail290
Any chance you can run the Low Power list? (same as above)
Anyway, yeah, I'm cutting cars. I'm not opposed to cutting cars per se.
But I have been trying to pad the lists, so there are more cars similar especially in the area of the middle.
So the slowest cars would be 1,2, & 3... but then you don't get cars with a bigger advantage unless there are more than 10 drivers racing.
That's why I think it's important to have more cars in the list.
And I'm trying to pick tracks on the itinerary to make sure there are a variety of tracks. Not just several tracks likely to advantage certain cars in the line-up.
Of course the podiumss are more likely to be drivers in the faster cars... But not because they got the faster cars, but because they actually raced well when they got the faster cars.
That's why I don't think it's fair to say someone "only won because they had the faster car". No, they won because they had a car that could perform - and they made it do so.
EVEN if you get a good car... you're still going to have the likes of Kling & Longbowx coming for your points in the mediocre cars.
Thanks!
Do you have a time for the Miata? You mentioned testing it, but I don't see a time.
@LongbowX
Any chance you can run the Low Power list?
0:00.000 -- Triumph Spitfire 1500 74 =
0:00.000 -- Honda S800 '66 =
0:00.000 -- Suzuki Cappuccino (EA11R) '91 =
0:00.000 -- Nissan CUBE EX (FF/CVT) '02 =
0:00.000 -- Toyota Yaris F (J) '99 =
0:00.000 -- Daihatsu Copen Active Top '02 =
0:00.000 -- Fiat 500 1.2 8V Lounge SS '08 =
0:00.000 -- Nissan Be-1 '87 =
0:00.000 -- Daihatsu MOVE SR-XX 4WD '97 =
0:00.000 -- Mazda Autozam AZ-1 '92 =
0:00.000 -- Mini Cooper 1.3i '98 =
0:00.000 -- Nissan SKYLINE Sport Coupe (BLRA-3) '62 =
0:00.000 -- Nissan PAO '89 =
0:00.000 -- Ford Ka '01 =
0:00.000 -- Suzuki WAGON R RR '98 =
0:00.000 -- Volvo 240 GLT Estate '88 =
@GTsail290
Any chance you can run the Low Power list? (same as above)
Anyway, yeah, I'm cutting cars. I'm not opposed to cutting cars per se.
But I have been trying to pad the lists, so there are more cars similar especially in the area of the middle.
So the slowest cars would be 1,2, & 3... but then you don't get cars with a bigger advantage unless there are more than 10 drivers racing.
That's why I think it's important to have more cars in the list.
And I'm trying to pick tracks on the itinerary to make sure there are a variety of tracks. Not just several tracks likely to advantage certain cars in the line-up.
Of course the podiumss are more likely to be drivers in the faster cars... But not because they got the faster cars, but because they actually raced well when they got the faster cars.
That's why I don't think it's fair to say someone "only won because they had the faster car". No, they won because they had a car that could perform - and they made it do so.
EVEN if you get a good car... you're still going to have the likes of Kling & Longbowx coming for your points in the mediocre cars.