Hello!


Correct answers, Round 7 at Nürburgring:



[B]Comments: [/B]
A bit more difficult round this time. Apparently one can’t really overestimate the depths Williams and McLaren are capable of sinking to these days. Just when you think they must have reached the rock bottom already, they deliver yet another abysmal performance. Jaguar also fail to live up to our expectations; outqualified by the Toyota geriatric ward and half-outraced by some yellow car that surely should’ve been mingling with the Minardis.

Results:
No perfect scores this time. The best individual results were dnbn’s 7.11 for qualifying and ron’s and Schuting Star’s 7.59 for race. In overall results for round 7, the podium trio is ron (who becomes the first double winner in this game, he also won the season opener), Schuting Star and DeathMasteR. Congratulations!



The average score was 7,77 which would’ve been good enough for the 20th place. The popular guess 1X2 11X 1XX 11X would’ve been worth 7,51 points and a joint 20th.


Moving on to the championship standings after round 7/18. No points for guessing who continues to hold on to the top spot; this is dnbn’s 6th consecutive race as the provisional first-ever F1 Pools champ. How does he do it? Elsewhere in the standings, Makarias graciously jumps off the podium, allowing ron, Viss1 and Estwald to leapfrog him. The biggest mover upwards this round is Schuting Star who climbs 7 places back to top 10.






Let me know if there are any weird scores or suspect results around. I do my best to avoid unnecessary mistakes but, to quote a great philosopher: ”Shit happens.” Oh, and to elaborate on the discussion I had with garth_b in the Monaco results thread, that ”retired but was classified” situation has actually happened before (Sato at Sepang). My ruling was the same back then, so at least I’m consistent even when contradicting myself.

I’ll post a new thread for round 8 guesses in a few days.

How can Sauber-McLaren be a 2 in quals if Coulthard started from the back??

Because


Two non-results (no time, DNF, DNS etc.) negate each other. Kimi outqualified Massa, hence McLaren wins.

Good result, up 1

Congrats ron and thanks kismet

Top 10
GO RIC GO!!!!

Holy shit!

Dropped 7 places (GP's worst)

I obviously wasn't paying attention at Sepang.

Up 3 spots. Happy with that.

Thanks kismet

What I'd like to argue is that the cancelling each other out rule is a weird one in the first place. Suddenly the drivers are compared one to one, unlike every other case. Compare these two example scenarios using Sauber - McLaren:

a)
Kimi wins, laps every German thrice, becomes honorary citizen of Rovaniemi and Maastricht
Fisichella finishes 7th, Ghostrider is ecstatic
Massa finishes 9th
DC retires
result: X (According to the rules, pardon me if I'm wrong?)

b)
Kimi wins just like in a), HSJ posts some stuff in RC that makes Mrv go bonkers
Fisichella finishes 7th
Massa retires
DC retires
result: 2

Now I would argue that the X result in a) would be an indication that at least one Sauber is acknowledged to have beaten a McLaren. But situation b)? How can what Massa does change the relation between Fisichella and Coulthard?

Maybe it's just me doing a poor job of doing stuff graciously...

I knew I can be great sometimes...

So you basically agree with a) but question the logic behind b)?

In case a) Sauber is rewarded for doing a better job than McLaren in that they at least get two cars to the checquered flag even if they are both quadruple-lapped by the one McLaren that survives the race.

In case b) Sauber does as bad a job as McLaren in that they both sport a car that doesn't even finish the race. In addition, the one Sauber that does finish the race is beaten by the remaining McLaren.

b) is clearly worse than a) if you're Sauber (slow and unreliable as opposed to just slow). Therefore I'd argue that a McLaren win (2) makes just as much sense in b) as a draw would. But I know it can be argued both ways. I even have a vague recollection that the rule was actually a late addition designed to erase a loophole or injustice of some sort, but I don't really remember what I was thinking at the time... Maybe it'll come back to me. Anyway, as it is, I'd prefer not to change that particular rule mid-season when I've been applying it left and right for the past 7 races. I can always change it for next year if that's what people want. I did ask for feedback when I first introduced the provisional rules but...

Sorry for being difficult and confusing. I'm afraid it's completely unintentional.

Of course I didn't come up with a nice situation c) until I had logged off...

c)
Kimi wins for a third consecutive time... What the hell?
Fisichella finishes 7th
Massa retires
DC fools everyone completely and finishes 8th
result: X

So the difference from b) is that DC actually finishes the race, a clear improvement even by Adrian Newey's standards, yet the game result goes from a McLaren win to a draw...

I fully understand that you don't want to change rules mid-season, I can relate to that, but you have to see this in a context of StickShift winning two rounds of different games lately and my luck or talent has gone for a summer break, so clearly I'm feeling like ranting a little bit...

Terrible results for me

Another difference is that in c) DC kindly provides evidence that a Sauber can actually outperform a McLaren. That reflects badly on McLaren and well on Sauber. In b) there's no indication this would/could happen, so we can generously, with the full support of cold hard facts, assume McLaren to be faster.

In summary,

a) McLaren is faster, Sauber is more reliable (result:X)
b) McLaren is faster, equal reliability (result: 2)
c) ohmygod, is that a Sauber splitting the McLarens in race classification?

c) is like a textbook definition of X in this game. Maybe it can be a bit clumsy and awkward, even illogical at times, but I wanted a draw to be a realistic possibility and the mixed grid/race classification idea is the best I could come up with. That's what we have in c).

Next!

Nope, for what it's worth Mak I agree with you. I actually made my judgements on the assumption that positions count regardless of how they got there even at the back of the grid. It seemed more logical to me as starting from the back is still a position and they do start. If they don't start the race, now that is a DNS and a non-result.

Oh well, at least I know what do take account of for the next race :\

I could indeed just look at the grid positions and let them decide (also at the back of the grid). But then, for consistency, I'd have to do the same with the race results and include everyone, not just those who actually finished the race. And here's a practical example of where that could lead us:

Let's say we have a Ferrari-Williams duel. MS wins the race, Ralfie and Juancho take each other out and Rubens forgets to pit, runs out of fuel and retires. Now, common sense says this would be a Ferrari win and my game rules agree. Yay! However, if I let the full race result list decide, as you suggest would be more logical in qualifying, the outcome would depend on whether RB retired before or after the Williams get-together. That seems a bit random to me, and certainly beyond what anyone could reasonably be expected to take into account when guessing the outcome of a duel.

We can't really have a different set of rules for qual and race - that would really be a complication. In my opinion failing to set a time in qualifying is perfectly analogous to failing to finish the race - in the context of this game where qualifying and race are treated separately. The race part was also covered in the original rules post, so it's not like I'm making things up as we go.

Anyway, this is just a harmless little game. Let's not take this too seriously.

Yes and no. You can not exactly predict who's going to retire when. However, you can look at reliability and drivers who are more accident prone than others. The fact that 62% of the entries for the race duel between Sauber and McLaren guessed a split result appears to confirm that the majority of the participants have taken the McLaren unreliability into account. It would make sense to take it into account, however, it's your game and your rules. I for one enjoy taking part in it, be it with or without adapted rules.

But I AM taking reliability into account. A team that is more unreliable than its duel opponent can never, under any circumstances, actually win a duel in this game. At best they can salvage an X.

The only time a team isn't punished for unreliability, according to my game rules, is when the duel opponent's reliability is equally imperfect. Case in point, the Sauber-McLaren qualifying duel at N'ring. Only one driver per team actually set a time, I awarded the win to McLaren 'cause their car qualified higher. Reliability-wise they were equal. Some argue the correct result would be an X because a Sauber officially beat a McLaren (the one that didn't qualify). I've already admitted that such an argument has its merits, explained why I chose a different approach and promised to consider adjusting the rules for next year.

Hehe, that last sentence could earn you an extra point or two. I'm a sucker for flattery.