rec.autos.simulators

GPL - Do YOU qualify within 107% of "pole"?

Pant

GPL - Do YOU qualify within 107% of "pole"?

by Pant » Thu, 03 Aug 2000 04:00:00

Yeah, so, being afflicted with the disease of loserdom, I decided to spend
last night calculating my best GPL lap times as a percentage of whatever the
lap record was for each of the GPL tracks.  I took the records from the
GPLRank page, and have gotten a better idea of the tracks I'm alright at and
at which tracks I suck.  If GPLRank calculated this sort of thing for
everyone, it might provide an objective assesment of the relative difficulty
of the circuits.  Here are mine, starting wtih the most difficult:

1.  Nurburgring (shock surprise) - 109.259%
2.  Monaco - 107.963%
3.  Rouen - 107.114%
4.  Mosport - 105.968%
5.  Zandvoort - 105.706%
6.  Silverstone - 105.652%
7.  Kyalami - 105.252%
8.  Mexico - 105.136%
9.  Spa - 103.842%
10.  Watkins Glen - 102.974%
11.  Monza - 102.486%

So, using modern standards, I'd qualify outside of 107%, and thus not make
the grid, at 3 of the tracks.. and now I know where to devote my energy!  I
love this stuff.  Did I mention my loserdom?

Pants

David Butte

GPL - Do YOU qualify within 107% of "pole"?

by David Butte » Fri, 04 Aug 2000 04:00:00


<snip>

Hey, another unnecessary statistic! I love these! OK, for me...

1. Monaco - 110.27%
2. Mexico - 106.85%
3. Nrburgring - 106.72%
4. Zandvoort - 106.35%
5. Rouen - 105.68%
6. Mosport - 105.39%
7. Kyalami - 104.79%
8. Silverstone - 104.11%
9. Watkins Glen - 103.56%
10. Monza - 103.00%
11. Spa - 102.91%

Well, nice to see I wasn't deluding myself all this time about liking
Spa. But I'm surprised at Kyalami - I don't like that place at all, and
much prefer Rouen, whihc I'm not that good at. And as for Monaco...
look, I just hate it, OK? ;-)

--
David. (GPLRank handicap: -3.90)
"After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll,
really."
(Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh)

Jochen Heisterman

GPL - Do YOU qualify within 107% of "pole"?

by Jochen Heisterman » Fri, 04 Aug 2000 04:00:00



Don't worry. I practised a lot at Zandvoort and managed to go under 1:30.
That
was the best I could do. Then I downloaded a lap from Wolfgang Woeger, who
managed a 1:23 !!!!! I studied his driving style and its pretty extreme, he
never
breaks with exception to the first curve.

I am unable and also unwillingly to change my driving style, which is more
elegant than WWs. ;-)) SO those times are out of reach for me, but it is
okay.

Jochen

Txl

GPL - Do YOU qualify within 107% of "pole"?

by Txl » Fri, 04 Aug 2000 04:00:00

DON'T SAY THIS, EVER AGAIN.

You are going to get lots of messages telling you that GPL rank calculations
should remain the same and so on ....

VERY good idea, but not to be said out loud here.

Kurt Steinboc

GPL - Do YOU qualify within 107% of "pole"?

by Kurt Steinboc » Fri, 04 Aug 2000 04:00:00

<snip>

Okay, I'm admittedly severely math impaired, but there's something here I
don't understand.  David, if all your times are greater than 100%, how can
you have a negative GPLRank number?  I'm not challenging your prowess --
just curious about your math.  ;-)

Kurt

Eldre

GPL - Do YOU qualify within 107% of "pole"?

by Eldre » Fri, 04 Aug 2000 04:00:00



>Yeah, so, being afflicted with the disease of loserdom, I decided to spend
>last night calculating my best GPL lap times as a percentage of whatever the
>lap record was for each of the GPL tracks.  I took the records from the
>GPLRank page, and have gotten a better idea of the tracks I'm alright at and
>at which tracks I suck.  If GPLRank calculated this sort of thing for
>everyone, it might provide an objective assesment of the relative difficulty
>of the circuits.  Here are mine, starting wtih the most difficult:

>1.  Nurburgring (shock surprise) - 109.259%
>2.  Monaco - 107.963%
>3.  Rouen - 107.114%
>4.  Mosport - 105.968%
>5.  Zandvoort - 105.706%
>6.  Silverstone - 105.652%
>7.  Kyalami - 105.252%
>8.  Mexico - 105.136%
>9.  Spa - 103.842%
>10.  Watkins Glen - 102.974%
>11.  Monza - 102.486%

>So, using modern standards, I'd qualify outside of 107%, and thus not make
>the grid, at 3 of the tracks.. and now I know where to devote my energy!  I
>love this stuff.  Did I mention my loserdom?

Assuming those times in GPL rank are the records that were on Schubi's(?) site
a couple of months ago...
1. Nurburgring - 113.7%
2. Monaco - 109.7%
3. Mexico - 109.4%
4. Zandvoort - 108.9%
5. Mosport - 108.5%
6. Rouen - 108.3%
7. Silverstone - 107.8%
8. Kyalami - 107.5%
9. Spa - 106.0%
10. Watkins Glen - 105.9%
11. Monza - 103.1%

In other words, I'd only MAKE the grid at 3 of the tracks... This AFTER I've
lowered PB's at 5 of the tracks by a total of almost 7 seconds!

Eldred
--
Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
GPL hcp. +52.52

Never argue with an idiot.  He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

David Butte

GPL - Do YOU qualify within 107% of "pole"?

by David Butte » Fri, 04 Aug 2000 04:00:00


Simple. My %ages are of the World Record time, whereas my GPLRank is
calculated according to the Papyrus Benchmark time.

--
David. (GPLRank handicap: -3.90)
"After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll,
really."
(Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh)

Terry Lerou

GPL - Do YOU qualify within 107% of "pole"?

by Terry Lerou » Fri, 04 Aug 2000 04:00:00

1. Nuburgring - 108.54%
2. Monaco - 106.66%
3. Mexico - 105.38%
4. Zandvoort - 104.78%
5. Silverstone - 104.73%
6. Rouen - 104.57%
7. Mosport - 104.41%
8. Spa - 104.20%
9. Kyalami - 103.52%
10. Watkins Glen - 103.15%
11. Monza - 102.67%

I would also note that the Papyrus benchmarks fail to qualify at Monaco,
Nurburgring and Silverstone. And just to let you know your not the only
one that spends too much time calculating things at GPLRank. I spent a
little time determining which of the benchmarks were toughest to beat.
Basically below is the ranking of the benchmark times for each track.

1. Nurburgring - 236
2. Kyalami - 268
3. Mosport -338
4. Mexico - 345
5. Monaco - 345
6. Rouen - 347
7. Spa - 348
8. Zandvoort - 380
9. Silverstone - 592
10. Watkins Glen - 655
11. Monza - 773

From the ranking it appears that 3-8 are all about equally difficult to beat
the benchmark time. Monza on the other hand is obviously very easy to
beat, but Kyalami and Nurburgring have very fast benchmark times.
Strangely, Spa is one of the two benchmarks I haven't beaten and apparently
shouldn't be that tough. (The other is of course Nurburgring.)


> Yeah, so, being afflicted with the disease of loserdom, I decided to spend
> last night calculating my best GPL lap times as a percentage of whatever the
> lap record was for each of the GPL tracks.  I took the records from the
> GPLRank page, and have gotten a better idea of the tracks I'm alright at and
> at which tracks I suck.  If GPLRank calculated this sort of thing for
> everyone, it might provide an objective assesment of the relative difficulty
> of the circuits.  Here are mine, starting wtih the most difficult:

> 1.  Nurburgring (shock surprise) - 109.259%
> 2.  Monaco - 107.963%
> 3.  Rouen - 107.114%
> 4.  Mosport - 105.968%
> 5.  Zandvoort - 105.706%
> 6.  Silverstone - 105.652%
> 7.  Kyalami - 105.252%
> 8.  Mexico - 105.136%
> 9.  Spa - 103.842%
> 10.  Watkins Glen - 102.974%
> 11.  Monza - 102.486%

> So, using modern standards, I'd qualify outside of 107%, and thus not make
> the grid, at 3 of the tracks.. and now I know where to devote my energy!  I
> love this stuff.  Did I mention my loserdom?

> Pants

Kurt Steinboc

GPL - Do YOU qualify within 107% of "pole"?

by Kurt Steinboc » Fri, 04 Aug 2000 04:00:00



>>Okay, I'm admittedly severely math impaired, but there's something
>>here I don't understand.  David, if all your times are greater than
>>100%, how can you have a negative GPLRank number?  I'm not
>>challenging your prowess -- just curious about your math.  ;-)

>Simple. My %ages are of the World Record time, whereas my GPLRank is
>calculated according to the Papyrus Benchmark time.

>--
>David. (GPLRank handicap: -3.90)
>"After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll,
>really."
>(Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh)

Sorry, David --

It went right by me that the percentages were of world records.  Math
impaired, and attention impaired too!  My dumb.

Kurt

Uncle Feste

GPL - Do YOU qualify within 107% of "pole"?

by Uncle Feste » Fri, 04 Aug 2000 04:00:00


> Yeah, so, being afflicted with the disease of loserdom, I decided to spend
> last night calculating my best GPL lap times as a percentage of whatever the
> lap record was for each of the GPL tracks.  I took the records from the
> GPLRank page, and have gotten a better idea of the tracks I'm alright at and
> at which tracks I suck.  If GPLRank calculated this sort of thing for
> everyone, it might provide an objective assesment of the relative difficulty
> of the circuits.  Here are mine, starting wtih the most difficult:

> 1.  Nurburgring (shock surprise) - 109.259%
> 2.  Monaco - 107.963%
> 3.  Rouen - 107.114%
> 4.  Mosport - 105.968%
> 5.  Zandvoort - 105.706%
> 6.  Silverstone - 105.652%
> 7.  Kyalami - 105.252%
> 8.  Mexico - 105.136%
> 9.  Spa - 103.842%
> 10.  Watkins Glen - 102.974%
> 11.  Monza - 102.486%

> So, using modern standards, I'd qualify outside of 107%, and thus not make
> the grid, at 3 of the tracks.. and now I know where to devote my energy!  I
> love this stuff.  Did I mention my loserdom?

> Pants

Geeez.....

1.   Kyalami      - 107.7% (Maybe I'd make the cut if I drove for
Ferarri?<g>)
2.   Mexico       - 138.9%
3.   Monaco       - 129.5%
4.   Monza        - 104.7% (Of course...everybody'd make this one!)
5.   Mosport      - 118.5%
6.   Nuburgring   - 129.4%
7.   Rouen        - 115.3%
8.   Silverstone  - 108.6%
9.   Spa          - 111.8%
10.  Watkins Glen - 108.0%
11.  Zandvoort    - 116.8%

Knew I wasn't exactly the fastest, but come on!  Make one race, two if I
had some "political" clout?  Think comparing against the Papy benchmark
times would be better... <g>

--
Chuck Kandler

Windows is just a virus with a GUI

Dan Belch

GPL - Do YOU qualify within 107% of "pole"?

by Dan Belch » Fri, 04 Aug 2000 04:00:00

Sorry for acting like a total dumbass here, but how do I calculate the
percentage for my laps compared to the world records?

-----------------------------------------
Dan Belcher
Team Racing Unlimited
http://simcrash.00game.com

Eldre

GPL - Do YOU qualify within 107% of "pole"?

by Eldre » Fri, 04 Aug 2000 04:00:00



>1. Nurburgring - 236
>2. Kyalami - 268
>3. Mosport -338
>4. Mexico - 345
>5. Monaco - 345
>6. Rouen - 347
>7. Spa - 348
>8. Zandvoort - 380
>9. Silverstone - 592
>10. Watkins Glen - 655
>11. Monza - 773

>From the ranking it appears that 3-8 are all about equally difficult to beat
>the benchmark time. Monza on the other hand is obviously very easy to
>beat, but Kyalami and Nurburgring have very fast benchmark times.
>Strangely, Spa is one of the two benchmarks I haven't beaten and apparently
>shouldn't be that tough. (The other is of course Nurburgring.)

Monza is obviously very easy to beat?!?  What have YOU been smoking?<g>  I
*finally* beat the Papy benchmark - after 2 years...  I gues the other 10 will
take ANOTHER two years...

Eldred
--
Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999
Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
GPL hcp. +52.52

Never argue with an idiot.  He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Terry Lerou

GPL - Do YOU qualify within 107% of "pole"?

by Terry Lerou » Fri, 04 Aug 2000 04:00:00


> >From the ranking it appears that 3-8 are all about equally difficult to beat
> >the benchmark time. Monza on the other hand is obviously very easy to
> >beat, but Kyalami and Nurburgring have very fast benchmark times.
> >Strangely, Spa is one of the two benchmarks I haven't beaten and apparently
> >shouldn't be that tough. (The other is of course Nurburgring.)

> Monza is obviously very easy to beat?!?  What have YOU been smoking?<g>  I
> *finally* beat the Papy benchmark - after 2 years...  I gues the other 10 will
> take ANOTHER two years...

> Eldred
> --
> Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999
> Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett
> GPL hcp. +52.52

> Never argue with an idiot.  He brings you down to his level, then beats you
> with experience...
> Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

Sorry, poor choice of words. Monza is the least difficult benchmark to beat, more
than half
the drivers have managed to do so.  On the bright side, you're only .05 secs off
of the
Watkins time with a Ferrari, you could have your second benchmark beat with your
next
PB. (As for the Nurburgring, I'll let you know when I'm close enough to have a
chance of
beating it.)
Uncle Feste

GPL - Do YOU qualify within 107% of "pole"?

by Uncle Feste » Fri, 04 Aug 2000 04:00:00


> Sorry for acting like a total dumbass here, but how do I calculate the
> percentage for my laps compared to the world records?

> -----------------------------------------
> Dan Belcher
> Team Racing Unlimited
> http://simcrash.00game.com

I can tell you how I did it.  Take the best time for each track at GPL
Rank.  Convert it to a seconds format.  Then do the same with your best
time, and compare the two.  See, wasn't that easy? ;-)

--
Chuck Kandler

Windows is just a virus with a GUI

Terry Lerou

GPL - Do YOU qualify within 107% of "pole"?

by Terry Lerou » Fri, 04 Aug 2000 04:00:00

Pretty simple, WR for Kyalami is 1:17.87. Your best is 1:20.60. Percentage
is
simply 80.60/77.87 or 103.51% (Sadly for me, just in front of my time. :)

> Sorry for acting like a total dumbass here, but how do I calculate the
> percentage for my laps compared to the world records?

> -----------------------------------------
> Dan Belcher
> Team Racing Unlimited
> http://simcrash.00game.com


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.