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

In article <[email hidden]>, Terry Leroux <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (17 lines)

>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.

> 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? ;-) > I'm glad someone else admits to hating Monaco. There's not been a sim released yet where I've enjoyed driving that abomination. :-) DN's Road Atlanta is apt to seriously challenge Spa as my favorite track. Jerry Morelock

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

On Thu 03 Aug 2000 03:57:46am, Pants wrote: >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.<snip> Hey, another unnecessary statistic! I love these! OK, for me... 1. Monaco - 110.27% 2. Mexico - 106.85% 3. N�rburgring - 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)

In article <8manb3$1d0k$[email hidden]>, "Pants" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (24 lines)

>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.

On Thu 03 Aug 2000 12:56:46pm, Kurt Steinbock wrote: >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)

Pants <[email hidden]> schrieb im Beitrag <8manb3$1d0k$[email hidden]>... > Yeah, so, being afflicted with the disease of loserdom, I decided tospend > last night calculating my best GPL lap times as a percentage of whateverthe > 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 atand > at which tracks I suck. If GPLRank calculated this sort of thing for > everyone, it might provide an objective assesment of the relativedifficulty > of the circuits. Here are mine, starting wtih the most difficult:> 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

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

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. > If GPLRank calculated this sort of thing for > everyone, it might provide an objective assesment of the relativedifficulty > of the circuits. Here are mine, starting wtih the most difficult:

David Buttery wrote in message <[email hidden]>... <snip>

Quoted text (16 lines)

> >Hey, another unnecessary statistic! I love these! OK, for me... > >1. Monaco - 110.27% >2. Mexico - 106.85% >3. N�rburgring - 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% > >David. (GPLRank handicap: -3.90)

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

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.) Pants wrote:

Quoted text (25 lines)

> 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 Buttery wrote in message <[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (15 lines)

>On Thu 03 Aug 2000 12:56:46pm, Kurt Steinbock wrote: > >>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

Pants wrote:

Quoted text (26 lines)

> > 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

EldredP wrote:

Quoted text (19 lines)

> >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.)

Dan Belcher wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > 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

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. :) Dan Belcher wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 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

In article <eRlAwsa$$GA.320@cpmsnbbsa07>, "chainbreaker" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>> 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? ;-) >> > >I'm glad someone else admits to hating Monaco. There's not been a sim >released yet where I've enjoyed driving that abomination. :-)

Strangely, Monaco was my FAVORITE track in GP2... 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 Leroux <[email hidden]> writes: [snip]

Quoted text (11 lines)

> 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

[pins] 9, 10 and 11 are the tracks where the benchmark replays were not done with the Lotus if I remember correctly, no surprise they are easier to beat... _ Mats Lofkvist [email hidden]

Mats Lofkvist wrote:

Quoted text (23 lines)

> Terry Leroux <[email hidden]> writes: > > [snip] > > 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 > [pins] > > 9, 10 and 11 are the tracks where the benchmark replays were not > done with the Lotus if I remember correctly, no surprise they are > easier to beat... > > _ > Mats Lofkvist > [email hidden]

Monza was set in an Eagle, Schubi's site shows the record as 1:26.49 in a Lotus and 1:26.52 in an Eagle, Watkins 1:03.22 in a Lotus, 1:03.86 in a Ferrari, and Silverstone 1:24.92 in an Eagle and 1:25.81 in an Eagle. So while the chasis may have something to do with Watkins and Silverstone, it doesn't explain Monza, or Spa, as it should have been run in an Eagle and the Papyrus lap was done in a Lotus. (And its 1 of 2 benchmarks I haven't managed to beat yet.)

Jon Andersen wrote: > > The converting part is easy, but getting times worthy of comparing..... Now, > that's the hard part. You said a mouthful there! Comparing in public like this can be kinda embarrassing for some of us. <g> -- Chuck Kandler A man is no less a Slave just because he is allowed to choose a new Master every four years. Registered Linux User #180746 http://counter.li.org

> Sorry, poor choice of words. Monza is the least difficult benchmark tobeat, more > than half > the drivers have managed to do so. This isn't necessarily true. Monza is the newbie track. Most of us has spent much more time at Monza than the Ring, Silverstone, Mexico & Mosport. That is probably the main reason a lot of people has beaten the benchmark. I raced Monza and Monza only for about 3 months. Beating the rest of the benchmark didn't take me half as much time. Jon Andersen

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 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 >

The converting part is easy, but getting times worthy of comparing..... Now, that's the hard part. Jon Andersen