I was driving with you guys, and I just put kid to bed (I was in setup race than), and when I was back it says "Disconected from host!?" .. Is this mean, that host (Rob?) thought I had a connection issues and than he kick me?.. I was just AFK, and I didn't manage to tell you that in game..
After that I went off..
Well lads, you need to practice more
But seriously, I'm pretty surprised that I won. And in last race LOL. Afonso didn't expect that, ha! And all this in a competition without collissions.
ah sorry buddy, figured you had connection issues. We did wait for a bit to see if you came back.
Originally Posted by Cyrex
Hiatus mode activated!!!
It doesn't, because of no qualifying... but it's still much closer to showing who's faster than NSGPOC is
Guys, this reminds me of the big question, who is better: F1/track drivers vs WRC/rally drivers? F1 drivers get close to perfection in mastering each corner, racing in extreme conditions. You can say that they\'re prepared for every event. Rally drivers have to adapt more, react, show their skills on different surfaces. If I\'m right, they don\'t have the possibility to practice the special stages before the rally.
@Afonso: I have no opinion about which is better, but you certainly don\'t mean that I won/ Kos almost won due to luck?
Rankings for what, for comparing F1 drivers to rally drivers? I think it\'s hard to compare them, as Sebastien Loeb would suck in F1 and Kubica/Raikkonen suck in Rally (Well maybe they don\'t suck but they\'re not so much better than other rally drivers).
Originally Posted by peter-27
You can't compare F1 drivers to rally drivers as it is not the same sport, it just has the same foundation. In fact, contrary to the way kids usually see it each driver has a footballmanageresque range of characteristics that trumps that silly notion of "how fast" someone is. Schumacher was (is?) a supreme example of this.
Assuming none of the competing parties is too young/old and they both possess equal form / knowledge of all the factors that help success such as car and track knowledge, that would leave us with... just about a million other factors? (that's why often when you watch one motorsport and a guy comes and he's crap and then he goes on to demolish something else you think "omg how much they suck there!?" instead of what I just wrote there). The specifics of just about anything can be a major factor in decision as well. So someone is a rally god and he comes to, I dont know, RoC and he's below average. Does it make him a slower rally driver? The differences between top form drivers in F1 are already so small that the margin of error of any cross-series comparison would go through the roof and into orbit. Personal preferences cannot be brought to a common denominator. In F1 history you had drivers performance wildly varying not just compared to others but compared to their own team-mates simply on the basis of how that season's car or particular set of rules met the areas in which they exceed.
Now that I think of it I was a fan of a driver who loved to rally through F1 with late braking, throwing the car around and doing crazy stuff with throttle, mainly because it looked hella attractive. Needless to say his skill would "magically" drop by quite some whenever the car did not posses the ability to be thrown around, TC was all the rage or whatever else in the car/rules that season suited him more or less.
You might say he'd be more successfull at some other era of racing and certainly, that brings yet more problems to the table. Different era drivers would've completely trashed each other under their own respective driving conditions as different sub-skills were required. If driving is A-Z and you enter an era where BMG&F are best qualities to have and you have ****loads of B&G you're likely to make a name for yourself. If B&G are not all that important now you'll only be as competitive as complete a package you are, which would again favor modern drivers, etc, etc.
As for SGP, I'm quite happy how it went, and even though I'm such a "fack up" I've only really facked up 2 or so races for real, most notably Italy where the height of the view made me go off track from first to last - LOL.
Several other crap results were beyond my abilities. For example, one track everyone has driven before but me so I was beaten into a pulp there. One other track there was an invisible wall on the track I've hit several times, etc. Overall I felt faster than Prz and got 7 wins to his 5. Of course, I don't know how many of these unovaidable "fack aps" he had, because if he had more than I did it means he was even faster than me than the table currently shows. We can never tell but if we assume finishing on the podium means your race might not have been THAT BAD, in direct fights where we were both near the top I won... err... 6:2
Some things we can tell for sure though:
Kolowski DID NOT push me off the road to win
Afonso DID NOT win after failing to push me off the road
1. I agree that you cant compare rally and F1
2. However, both are drivers, both share some similar features, hence the temptation to compare
3. There are some better paid/ more prestigious racing series than others, F1 being on the top. So if you\'re a talented driver, you will want to earn a lot and be popular.
4. I think there are some universal personal traits that can be described as general racing talent, but each racing series requires experience, that\'s why it\'s not so easy for F1 king to go and rule in WRC.
5. Here we go again, you trying to forge your loss into a win. So what if it was 6:2 in races where you didnt foock up? I\'m not going to count the other way round cause it makes no sense.
6. I think your foockups come from racing on the edge, while I was racing more conservatively (slower). So what if you were faster when my strategy was more point-effective?
7. Remember about Germany, where I was right behind you I got d/c, and you foocked up that one. That\'s at least 12 points lost for me (got 6 instead of 18), but it could have easily been a win, unless you claim that you foocked up cause you got so worried about my d/c .
2. Temptation fail
3. Understanding how a race driver career works fail
4. Covered in much more detail in my post, oversimplifying here
5. I did not say I won, I said I was better on near-equal conditions
6. Disagree, its very rare that I drive on edge. Assuming equal foock upensies, wherever I had a lack of track knowledge etc it made me dead last, while your on track losses simply made you 2nd or 3rd, etc. The points system did the rest. That's only after I ignore Rob starting last every race and the fact he might have easily won himself.
7. What do you mean? I did not foock up Germany, I got 2nd? Your d/c was unfortunate but I had more of those events where you can't help it, that's what turned the standings around, not me driving on edge
lol. u mad?
Castrol rankings suck beyond recognition. I mean... all such rankings suck but I could gather some folks and we could vote on which of those sucky rankings are complex enough and based on the more proper criteria, and decide which are RELATIVELY close to the truth. Castrol rankings would not even enter the preliminaries of that competition. My cat could pee a better ranking out. In fact, Przemator's ELO peed a much more relevant list than that and even with some huge gaps to fill due to special circumstances not involved in the calculation.
You REAAAALLY have to be foocked up in the head to think Webber is better than both Hamilton and Alonso or that Massa would beat Rosberg.
Actually this is just your submissive nature falling under false authority without questioning the value of its claims Even modest amount of skepticism and "knowledge" on the matter would've had you laughing. Castrol rankings have even been discussed among racing fans since a long time ago and their siliness is widely acknowledged. Just recently I've seen that our TV commentator, an ex F1 reject and self-proclaimed expert assembled his own multi-cathegory-driver-ranking and while I might not agree with either of those (or any for that matter as my knowledge is limited to guesswork, much like theirs is) his was a more serious effort of someone who HAS obviously seen racing before, instead of just counting the high placings Of course, they also acknowledge the siliness of the ranking themselves admiting it's based on driver success, which is only loosely connected to driver skill