Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Racing artificiality


  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

Poll: ? (118 member(s) have cast votes)

What takes the bite as the WORST FORM of racing artificiality

  1. Reversed, random grids (18 votes [15.25%])

    Percentage of vote: 15.25%

  2. Push-to-pass, DRS (24 votes [20.34%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.34%

  3. Success ballast, success time (during pitstops etc) (21 votes [17.80%])

    Percentage of vote: 17.80%

  4. Performance balancing inside and/or outside the classes, in GENERAL (1 votes [0.85%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.85%

  5. Performance balancing when it's the primary concept of the series, FIA GT3 style (5 votes [4.24%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.24%

  6. Performance balancing between different technologies, drivetrains, fuels (diesel, petrol etc) ie not directly car related necessarily (3 votes [2.54%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.54%

  7. Waiver granting for specific cars (even when there's no real reason) (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  8. Usage of fuel is limited to certain amount (1 votes [0.85%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.85%

  9. Mandatory use of multiple tyre compounds (10 votes [8.47%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.47%

  10. Mandatory pit stops in shorter races, pit stop in specific time frame (3 votes [2.54%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.54%

  11. Drivers are allowed to cut through (tarmac) run-offs or partially go past the white line without penalty (10 votes [8.47%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.47%

  12. "You can zig but you cant zag" (2 votes [1.69%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.69%

  13. Joker laps, reference lap times (Dubai 24h, Bathurst 12h) (3 votes [2.54%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.54%

  14. Joker laps in rallycross (2 votes [1.69%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.69%

  15. Disallowing new car-related inventions as they might prove to be too advantageous (3 votes [2.54%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.54%

  16. Spec tires, spec ECUs, spec bodywork etc in order to close up the competition (3 votes [2.54%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.54%

  17. Superspeedway restrictor plate racing, tandems, packs (1 votes [0.85%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.85%

  18. Competition cautions (7 votes [5.93%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.93%

  19. Green-white checkered (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  20. Aaron's Lucky Dog (1 votes [0.85%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.85%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 SonnyViceR

SonnyViceR
  • Member

  • 1,387 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 13:29

Self-explanatory poll options. Well, hopefully at least. I don't follow (or know anything about) bikes or rallying so I didn't include any of them here. Except the rallycross thing, it was suggested to me elsewhere...

There were only 20 options available so some had to be left out, sorry.

Posted Image

Edited by SonnyViceR, 16 January 2013 - 14:27.


Advertisement

#2 Jimisgod

Jimisgod
  • Member

  • 2,949 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 13:45

In order of annoyance:

#1 - Reversed, random grids

#2 - Success ballast, success time (during pitstops etc)

#3 - Competition cautions

#4 - Mandatory pit stops in shorter races, pit stop in specific time frame

#5 - Drivers are allowed to cut through (tarmac) run-offs or partially go past the white line without penalty

#6 - Spec tires, spec ECUs, spec bodywork etc in order to close up the competition

#= - Disallowing new car-related inventions as they might prove to be too advantageous (which is essentially the same as spec racing)

#8 - Mandatory use of multiple tyre compounds

#9 - Push-to-pass, DRS

#10 - "You can zig but you cant zag"

#11 - Performance balancing inside and/or outside the classes, in GENERAL

Haven't watched series with the other things mentioned.

Edited by Jimisgod, 16 January 2013 - 13:47.


#3 SonnyViceR

SonnyViceR
  • Member

  • 1,387 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 13:51

Btw please notice the difference between regular full course yellows, and NASCAR / stock car competition cautions.

Just saying so that there's no misunderstanding.

Edited by SonnyViceR, 16 January 2013 - 13:55.


#4 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 2,516 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 16 January 2013 - 13:59

While a lot of these measures do indeed hamper open and fair competition in one way or another (and are thus generally unwanted), I'd say mandating a 'spec' is the most grating because it simply removes the technical competition altogether.

Edited by Nonesuch, 16 January 2013 - 14:00.


#5 Frank Tuesday

Frank Tuesday
  • Member

  • 932 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 16 January 2013 - 14:00

In my opinion, the worst form of artificiality is full course yellow/safety car. It doesn't matter if it is done under the guise of safety, or for entertainment reasons. It is fundamentally the antithesis of the sport of racing. Since that isn't one of my options, I can't vote.

#6 Disgrace

Disgrace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 10,431 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 16 January 2013 - 14:04

1. DRS.

2. The rest.

#7 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 16 January 2013 - 14:15

DRS is at the top of the list for me.

The rules on defending are another sore point with me. I prefer seeing spirited defense on the track in F1.

#8 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,874 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 16 January 2013 - 14:20

In my opinion, the worst form of artificiality is full course yellow/safety car. It doesn't matter if it is done under the guise of safety, or for entertainment reasons. It is fundamentally the antithesis of the sport of racing. Since that isn't one of my options, I can't vote.


It's one of the only 'gimmicks' that has a safety benefit, so I don't see any reason to criticise it.

#9 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 9,865 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 16 January 2013 - 14:26

Success ballast and performance balancing to me are by far the worst offenders. That's directly and intentionally making quicker cars slower, and slower cars quicker. Completely ruins the spirit of racing. I voted the FIA GT3 option.

Stuff like push-to-pass/DRS doesn't even register in comparison.

Edited by noikeee, 16 January 2013 - 14:28.


#10 jonpollak

jonpollak
  • Member

  • 13,713 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 16 January 2013 - 14:26

"DEBRIS"
(usually a well timed thrown water bottle)

Jp

#11 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,391 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 16 January 2013 - 14:27

"You can zig but can´t zag" is not even related to artificial racing, it´s a part of racing ettiquete that makes racing itself possible. Without it there´s no way getting alongside anyone.

Worse for me is success ballast, then manipulated grids, then mandatory stops.

#12 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,153 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 16 January 2013 - 14:29

"You can zig but can´t zag" is not even related to artificial racing, it´s a part of racing ettiquete that makes racing itself possible. Without it there´s no way getting alongside anyone.

Worse for me is success ballast, then manipulated grids, then mandatory stops.


I don't debate some rules on defending are needed, but I'd prefer to see it a little more like it was 20-25 years ago where multiple defensive moves were allowed in one go.

#13 SonnyViceR

SonnyViceR
  • Member

  • 1,387 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 14:32

Went with GT3-styled BoP too, it is beyond disgusting and makes me want to throw up. I mean, it was fine-ish during the first few years of the class when it was designed STRICTLY AND ONLY for amateur gentleman drivers and the cars were more low-tech too, with very much limited range of series where to go. It didn't bother because of those facts, even though the aspect of 100% performance balanced category was disturbing then, too.

But now it's gone totally out of hand as it's interfering with everything, it'd beyond joke. I cannot take any of that class seriously.

There are some other classes too with that mindset but they do not tend to use it so fiercly.

Edited by SonnyViceR, 16 January 2013 - 14:35.


#14 SonnyViceR

SonnyViceR
  • Member

  • 1,387 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 14:37

"You can zig but can´t zag" is not even related to artificial racing, it´s a part of racing ettiquete that makes racing itself possible.


It was suggested elsewhere so that's why it's there.

IMO it is a bit artificial nevertheless...

#15 spacekid

spacekid
  • Member

  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 16 January 2013 - 14:38

A well thought out list of options :up:

I'm not familiar with all of the formats that you have referred to, but its a good reminder that there are plenty of motor sports codes outside of F1, which can sometimes be forgotten on this forum.

My biggest annoyance by far is success balast, because I always thought the point of competition was to be better than your opponents. If the others aren't good enough (for whatever reason) then tough. After that then random/reversed grids.

I don't mind whether a series is spec or prescribes a formula, so long as the rules apply equally to everyone.

What is green-white chequer? And Aaron's lucky dog?

Edited by spacekid, 16 January 2013 - 14:40.


#16 SonnyViceR

SonnyViceR
  • Member

  • 1,387 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 14:41

Rest of my top 5:
2) Joker laps, reference lap times (Dubai 24h, Bathurst 12h) - also GT3 related
3) Competition cautions
4) Disallowing new car-related inventions as they might prove to be too advantageous
TIED with Drivers are allowed to cut through (tarmac) run-offs or partially go past the white line without penalty
5) Waiver granting for specific cars (even when there's no real reason)

Edited by SonnyViceR, 16 January 2013 - 14:49.


#17 SonnyViceR

SonnyViceR
  • Member

  • 1,387 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 14:45

What is green-white chequer? And Aaron's lucky dog?


http://wiki.answers....kered_in_NASCAR
http://nascar.about..../a/luckydog.htm

#18 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,655 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 16 January 2013 - 14:49

"You can zig but can´t zag" is not even related to artificial racing, it´s a part of racing ettiquete that makes racing itself possible. Without it there´s no way getting alongside anyone.

Too right.

Worse for me is success ballast

Would probably be mine as well. Its punishment for doing well.

#19 Victor_RO

Victor_RO
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,863 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 15:18

1. Phantom yellows / competition cautions
2. GT3-style balance of performance
3. Reversed/random grids
4. DRS
5. Mandatory pitstops and/or mandated time pitstops for performance reasons

As for the joker lap times at Dubai, the organizers finally saw some sense and allowed cars classified as "Pro" (qualified under a minimum laptime) to run flat-out (while taking a BoP hit). And an Am car which ran to a reference time still finished 4th.

Advertisement

#20 SonnyViceR

SonnyViceR
  • Member

  • 1,387 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 15:25

As for the joker lap times at Dubai, the organizers finally saw some sense and allowed cars classified as "Pro" (qualified under a minimum laptime) to run flat-out (while taking a BoP hit). And an Am car which ran to a reference time still finished 4th.


I didn't follow the race for one minute this year (apart from the discussion they had in last week's MWM) for the reasons I've told before, but I did however noticr this rule change. Sensible choice of course, but the post-qualifying +30kg & -5 liter fuel tank for PRO cars wasn't exactly that great either... what was the point? Lots of sandbagging again I'm sure!! And the AMs were still running with those weird rules

#21 SonnyViceR

SonnyViceR
  • Member

  • 1,387 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 15:31

Btw while the likes of DRS, Pirelli tyre lotteries and weird NASCAR gimmicks technically piss me off way more than waiver granting (in GT racing), I dislike it more as it interferes with something that I love more and therefore the impact is bigger

Edited by SonnyViceR, 16 January 2013 - 15:33.


#22 Victor_RO

Victor_RO
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,863 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 15:43

I didn't follow the race for one minute this year (apart from the discussion they had in last week's MWM) for the reasons I've told before, but I did however noticr this rule change. Sensible choice of course, but the post-qualifying +30kg & -5 liter fuel tank for PRO cars wasn't exactly that great either... what was the point? Lots of sandbagging again I'm sure!! And the AMs were still running with those weird rules


Two or three teams did admit to deliberate sandbagging in qualifying... out of about 25 A6/GT3 cars. As for the reference laptime as a performance balance rule, I personally think it makes sense, but ONLY if it applied to a mostly amateur class and the laptime is relatively achievable for the drivers. And apart from the top GT3 cars, most of the crews in that race are amateur-based.

Damn, I can't believe I'm sort of defending a BoP rule. :lol:

#23 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 10,077 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 16 January 2013 - 16:14

Frozen engines under spec format and a looooooot of other things.

#24 Victor_RO

Victor_RO
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,863 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 16:18

The biggest problem with half the choices in the poll is that, when you consider them as standalone ideas, they make a certain amount of sense, but governing bodies introduce these rules in series where they do not need to be introduced. The other ideas though... just silly.

#25 SonnyViceR

SonnyViceR
  • Member

  • 1,387 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 16:34

Two or three teams did admit to deliberate sandbagging in qualifying... out of about 25 A6/GT3 cars. As for the reference laptime as a performance balance rule, I personally think it makes sense, but ONLY if it applied to a mostly amateur class and the laptime is relatively achievable for the drivers. And apart from the top GT3 cars, most of the crews in that race are amateur-based.

Damn, I can't believe I'm sort of defending a BoP rule. :lol:


Yeah, you've made deal with the devil as well ;)

But rather than fool around with this insane rule at Dubai (and B12), and since we already know that all of the A6 cars have been balanced, tweaked and raped thousand times prior to event, just do this before first testing session

Pre-defined PRO GT3 with no driver restrictions // smaller fuel flow restrictor, smaller fuel tank
Pre-defined AM GT3 with max 1 (or 2?) Gold driver // no changes

Better yet, make them as separate classes... and even better, just don't have any of these PRO/AM shenanigans and have just a class called A6 where the "only" restricting aspect for the teams is the pre-event GT3 BoP sheet!

Problem solved, I mean it's still artificial **** but now everyone can mind their business and do whatever they can in the sessions. Preferably you wouldn't have any of this nonsense of course but it's not like that's gonna happen Years ago your top class at these minor endurance events would've been some obscure GT or touring car class nobody really cared about but at least they usually had sensible regs. GT3 just spreads like cancer and the treatment never works

Edited by SonnyViceR, 16 January 2013 - 16:41.


#26 SonnyViceR

SonnyViceR
  • Member

  • 1,387 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 16:56

The biggest problem with half the choices in the poll is that, when you consider them as standalone ideas, they make a certain amount of sense, but governing bodies introduce these rules in series where they do not need to be introduced. The other ideas though... just silly.


Surely you cannot claim that the usage of Lucky Dog isn't sensible in any self-respecting motor racing series? :p

#27 Victor_RO

Victor_RO
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,863 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 16:59

Surely you cannot claim that the usage of Lucky Dog isn't sensible in any self-respecting motor racing series? :p


Lucky dog is in the second category. :p

#28 SonnyViceR

SonnyViceR
  • Member

  • 1,387 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 17:01

Lucky dog is in the second category. :p


Just checking... :wave:

#29 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,481 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 16 January 2013 - 17:02

You probably should of made it a multi-choice poll.

I think success ballast and other performance balancing in a professional series is the worst. While it's understandable for amateurs and any turn up and drive series, in a serious race it's really bad. American style "competition" yellows are pretty awful as well. DRS isn't really as bad as I thought initially, even if the concept is completely articifial.

I don't agree with including a spec ECU with the other spec options though. Unlike tyres or engines, as far as I know an ECU doesn't really have much of an inpact, and it's the only way to stop Benetton sticking traction control in their cars...

#30 Rob

Rob
  • Member

  • 8,273 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 16 January 2013 - 17:06

The two compounds rule in F1 really bugs me. Let people run the compound they prefer!

#31 joshb

joshb
  • Member

  • 3,336 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 16 January 2013 - 17:06

Competition Cautions are a pain- just an excuse to spice things up.
Also don't like people who are good being penalised (success ballast, reverse grid)
The lucky dog is artificial but the laps are so short, if you make a stop under green flags, you lose a lap or 2 at some tracks so I can live with that, even though the races are long enough to make up ground

#32 SonnyViceR

SonnyViceR
  • Member

  • 1,387 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 17:09

I don't agree with including a spec ECU with the other spec options though. Unlike tyres or engines, as far as I know an ECU doesn't really have much of an inpact, and it's the only way to stop Benetton sticking traction control in their cars...


Well, I guess I'm sort of biased on that - all new spec ECU that was introduced for the GT1 class @ 2010 and it helped to destroy previously ultra reliable Corvette engines with some notable success rate... not to mention hampering other models too.

Edited by SonnyViceR, 16 January 2013 - 17:10.


#33 olliek88

olliek88
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 16 January 2013 - 17:17

The two compounds rule in F1 really bugs me. Let people run the compound they prefer!


Shipping/production costs would be increased significantly though, transporting twice the number of dry compounds that they are now when the team will probably come to the same conclusion of which tyre to run anyway.

#34 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,481 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 16 January 2013 - 17:57

Well, I guess I'm sort of biased on that - all new spec ECU that was introduced for the GT1 class @ 2010 and it helped to destroy previously ultra reliable Corvette engines with some notable success rate... not to mention hampering other models too.


I'm guessing that's just a rubbish unit they brought in! The spec F1 ECU hasn't caused any problems so if done right I think it's really beneficial if there are rules against driver aids.

#35 SonnyViceR

SonnyViceR
  • Member

  • 1,387 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 18:16

I'm guessing that's just a rubbish unit they brought in! The spec F1 ECU hasn't caused any problems so if done right I think it's really beneficial if there are rules against driver aids.


It wasn't really rubbish to my knowledge, worked fine on Saleen, or so they claimed (everyone but them protested against it, outside the FIA series that is). But the spec ECU was damaging all of the Corvettes that year... drivers couldn't powershift the sequential gearbox, and LS7.R wasn't rotating properly.

#36 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 14,453 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 16 January 2013 - 18:19

Fuel limits. They're race drivers, not mpg-counters.

#37 DrProzac

DrProzac
  • Member

  • 1,922 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 16 January 2013 - 18:26

Well, not every push-to-pas is bad. DRS and like are. Random grids wouldn't be that bad, but reversed are just a stupid idea. Success ballast is also a very stupid concept. Competition cautions are just unfair..

#38 SonnyViceR

SonnyViceR
  • Member

  • 1,387 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 18:31

Fuel limits. They're race drivers, not mpg-counters.


Did it really damage this class?

Posted Image

And LMP1 of 2014?

:p

#39 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 14,453 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 16 January 2013 - 19:15

Yes, IMSA's GTPs were much more fun.

Advertisement

#40 SonnyViceR

SonnyViceR
  • Member

  • 1,387 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 19:44

Yes, IMSA's GTPs were much more fun.


Can't really disagree with that, but IMO Group C was one of the only times when the fuel formula actually made some sense

#41 flatlander48

flatlander48
  • Member

  • 321 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 16 January 2013 - 22:29

It's one of the only 'gimmicks' that has a safety benefit, so I don't see any reason to criticise it.


The much despised Lucky Dog also has a safety aspect. NASCAR had a problem with cars racing to the S/F line when a caution came out. Very unsafe condition. Folks were doing real Last Lap stuff trying to get a lap back.
Very not good...

#42 flatlander48

flatlander48
  • Member

  • 321 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 16 January 2013 - 22:42

Competition Cautions are a pain- just an excuse to spice things up.


Usually they happen in NASCAR when there is a question about tire wear or potential catastrophic failure. Got to remember that stock cars are heavy, undertired, run at very high speeds on superspeedways and often in very hot weather.

#43 ryan86

ryan86
  • Member

  • 1,100 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 17 January 2013 - 00:10

If that's the case, why don't they pit a few laps earlier? It strikes me that a lot of the time in modern motorsport, teams/drivers won't take personal responsibility of a situation, as it would be detrimental to them, and try to bully the organisation into making a decision that is equally detrimental to everyone so to speak. For instance, the Silverstone qualifying session, the drivers were complaining that conditions were undrivable, which to be fair they were. However, this was a qualifying session in which everyone had at an opportunity to set a time and during a qualifying session you don't actually have to be out. Or how many times have drivers complained about how they can't keep the car on the road, yet choose to remain on intermediates. I think the point can in some ways be extended to the points about technical equality and ballast, where in various series if a team produces a car or innovation that makes them go quicker, you regulators better sort it so we're at least even again, not "we better make our car quicker."

It's amazing that I actually watch motor racing because I went through that list and I was nodding alonging, thinking "I hate that as well".

#44 flatlander48

flatlander48
  • Member

  • 321 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 17 January 2013 - 04:32

If that's the case, why don't they pit a few laps earlier?


Is your question related to the Competition Cautions or something else?

#45 ViMaMo

ViMaMo
  • Member

  • 5,139 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 17 January 2013 - 06:31

Fuel limits are used to hinder the engine development and the benefits without having to resort to new regulations.

The worst has to be the winning cars getting weight penalties.

#46 ryan86

ryan86
  • Member

  • 1,100 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 17 January 2013 - 12:05

Is your question related to the Competition Cautions or something else?


Yep, you said they throw Competition Cautions due to tyre wear/chances of blow-outs. What I'm saying is that maybe they should make the pit-stop earlier/drive slightly slower in the tyres are that on the limit.

#47 SonnyViceR

SonnyViceR
  • Member

  • 1,387 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 17 January 2013 - 12:19

NASCAR's basically doing it because
A) It artificially closes up the field again (no need to throw in mystery cautions that always need explaining)
B) More long ad break opportunities for TV
C) It's easy

#48 flatlander48

flatlander48
  • Member

  • 321 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 17 January 2013 - 12:22

Yep, you said they throw Competition Cautions due to tyre wear/chances of blow-outs. What I'm saying is that maybe they should make the pit-stop earlier/drive slightly slower in the tyres are that on the limit.


The length of the run is agreed upon with Goodyear. It is the first pit stop and it doesn't happen again. All it is is a check to see if conditions are no worse than they thought and that they understand what the tire situation will be. Goodyear then informs NASCAR and the word gets to the teams. You can't check tires while they are moving on the car and you don't want to put people are risk unnecessarily. Telling drivers to drive slower is sheer folly, and if you did that, you wouldn't have an accurate picture of that the tires are doing.

I think the only other situation where a Competition Caution comes up is when there was a patch to the race track between the last practice and the race. Early on they would run the race for a while and then check the surface to see if the repairs are OK.

Interesting how something is done to address a safety concern and its viewed as making the racing artificial.

Edited by flatlander48, 17 January 2013 - 12:23.


#49 flatlander48

flatlander48
  • Member

  • 321 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 17 January 2013 - 12:29

NASCAR's basically doing it because
A) It artificially closes up the field again (no need to throw in mystery cautions that always need explaining)
B) More long ad break opportunities for TV
C) It's easy


You guys are confusing Competition Cautions, which occur at the beginning of a race, with regular caution periods later or at the end of a race that are called for what seems to be dubious reasons. They are 2 different things. There are specific safety reasons for the Competition Cautions. The others, not so much.

#50 SonnyViceR

SonnyViceR
  • Member

  • 1,387 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 17 January 2013 - 12:40

You guys are confusing Competition Cautions, which occur at the beginning of a race, with regular caution periods later or at the end of a race that are called for what seems to be dubious reasons. They are 2 different things. There are specific safety reasons for the Competition Cautions. The others, not so much.


No I'm certainly not... I was the one who put it on the poll

Competition caution / pre-defined caution that happens during lap X and everybody knows about in advance
"'Normal caution" // visible crash, debris, coke can, whatever
"Mystery caution" // invisible debris

Just because competition caution often claims to have a "safety reason" doesn't mean it's true... it's just there to bunch up the field again

Edited by SonnyViceR, 17 January 2013 - 12:41.