On 2/17/2022 8:33 AM, Mark wrote:
> There were two ways through this that would have met both safety and
> regulatory concerns without (undue) controversy:
>
> 1. Complete the unlapping and bring the safety car in a lap later
> 2. Call a red flag earlier and restart the race when the track was
> clear

3. Bring in the Safety Car without any unlapping at all, permitting one
or two laps of racing at the end.

Having lapped cars overtake is optional. From section 48.12 of the
Sporting Regs:

'If the clerk of the course considers track conditions are unsuitable
for overtaking the message "OVERTAKING WILL NOT BE PERMITTED" will be
sent to all Competitors via the official messaging system.'

--
Mark Jackson - https://mark-jackson.online/
An object is a monotonous process.
- Nelson Goodman

Mark Jackson <mjackson@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On 2/17/2022 8:33 AM, Mark wrote:
>> There were two ways through this that would have met both safety and
>> regulatory concerns without (undue) controversy:
>>
>> 1. Complete the unlapping and bring the safety car in a lap later
>> 2. Call a red flag earlier and restart the race when the track was
>> clear
>
> 3. Bring in the Safety Car without any unlapping at all, permitting one
> or two laps of racing at the end.
>
> Having lapped cars overtake is optional. From section 48.12 of the
> Sporting Regs:
>
> 'If the clerk of the course considers track conditions are unsuitable
> for overtaking the message "OVERTAKING WILL NOT BE PERMITTED" will be
> sent to all Competitors via the official messaging system.'

Apologies - yes. That's entirely with the rules and precedents.

Alan wrote:

> What do you want to be that they keep Masi (or possibly "promote"
> him)?

You have your answer.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formulaone/article-10523523/F1-Michael-Masi-SACKED-race-director-Abu-Dhabi-Grand-Prix-controversy.html

The FIA SACKS race director Michael Masi after his controversial
handling of the Abu Dhabi GP...

"Bigbird" <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> writes:

> rtr wrote:
>
>> "Bigbird" <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > rtr wrote:
>> >
>> >> News <News@Group.Name> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand
>> Prix >> > controversy
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> This is getting tiring at this point.
>> >
>> > Then ignore it and carry on in ignorance.
>> >
>> >> Max won on track.
>> >
>> > ...and that is all there was to it?
>> >
>> > If you have chosen to live in the dark why even comment.
>> >
>> > [snip irrelevant asides]
>>
>> At this point we're splitting hairs. As some have already pointed out
>> even Hamilton won a championship in "questionable" circumstances.
>>
>> Sorry, but I can comment on anything I damn please.
>>
> [snip tiresome bullshit]
>
> Seems you are not so tired of this after all; wasn't difficult to out
> you was it.
>
> :-)

*sigh*

I am tired. Can't rec.autos.sport.f1 talk something more relevant like
the radically different approaches the teams took to car design this year.

I'm really interested with the "double-body" design that AM and Ferrari
seems to be trying out this year. I'm no aerodynamicist but if that
design works those cars will be really planted to the ground.

--
Ang kalayaan ay dili gihatag, ini'y giabot.
--
{gemini,gopher}://kalayaan.xyz

On 2022-02-17 8:31 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> What do you want to be that they keep Masi (or possibly "promote"
>> him)?
>
> You have your answer.
>
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formulaone/article-10523523/F1-Michael-Masi-SACKED-race-director-Abu-Dhabi-Grand-Prix-controversy.html
>
> The FIA SACKS race director Michael Masi after his controversial
> handling of the Abu Dhabi GP...
>

Nope.

'While Masi will no longer be race director, he will be offered a new
role within the FIA.'

If I say, "The Vancouver Canucks have sacked general manager, Jim
Benning", would you expect that that meant that would still have a job
with the Canucks if he chose to accept it?

Yes or no.

On 2022-02-16 2:53 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-15 2:02 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-02-15 5:10 a.m., Dan the Man wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 1:53:30 AM UTC-5, Bigbird
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> News wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi
>>>>>>> Grand Prix controversy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
>>>>>> but, but, but...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An FIA spokesperson said the investigation will be 'thorough,
>>>>>> objective and transparent'. (Jan 22)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bodes well for the new, double speaking, president.
>>>>> Break out the broom, time to sweep this under the rug!
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>>> But... ...if it was all Masi's doing...
>>>>
>>>> ...why would they need to do that?
>>>
>>> Explain your thought process?
>>>
>>
>> You really can't understand?
>>
>> I guess that was predictable.
>>
>> It's simple:
>>
>> If the whole of the story was that Masi acted on his own in response
>> to pressure from below,
>
> "below"?
>
>> there would be no reason at all for the FIA
>> to conceal its findings.
>>
>> The only reasonable conclusion is that there are elements to the
>> reasons that Masi did what he did that the FIA does NOT want to
>> disclose.
>>
>> Does that explain it for you?
>
> It explains your flawed thinking.
>
> Did you consider what their actions should be if they were to admit
> that the FIA double fucked themselves? If they admit the championship
> was handed to Max and that the stewards backed those incorrectly made
> decisions?

And "sacking" Masi somehow doesn't admit that?

>
> How would that look for the FIA and the sport? Anything there they may
> wish to keep as quiet as possible about?
>
> That you cannot think of any other "reasonable conclusion" speaks to
> your conceit.
>

On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 12:00:08 PM UTC-7, rtr wrote:

> I am tired.

and you are alan baker

On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 1:00:05 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> Nope.

where is rtr?

On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 2:27:02 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> And "sacking" Masi somehow doesn't admit that?

fuck off rtr

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-16 2:53 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-02-15 2:02 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2022-02-15 5:10 a.m., Dan the Man wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 1:53:30 AM UTC-5, Bigbird
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > News wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi
> > > > > > > > Grand Prix controversy
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> >
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
> > > > > > > but, but, but...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > An FIA spokesperson said the investigation will be
> > > > > > > 'thorough, objective and transparent'. (Jan 22)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bodes well for the new, double speaking, president.
> > > > > > Break out the broom, time to sweep this under the rug!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dan
> > > > >
> > > > > But... ...if it was all Masi's doing...
> > > > >
> > > > > ...why would they need to do that?
> > > >
> > > > Explain your thought process?
> > > >
> > >
> > > You really can't understand?
> > >
> > > I guess that was predictable.
> > >
> > > It's simple:
> > >
> > > If the whole of the story was that Masi acted on his own in
> > > response to pressure from below,
> >
> > "below"?
> >
> > > there would be no reason at all for the FIA
> > > to conceal its findings.
> > >
> > > The only reasonable conclusion is that there are elements to the
> > > reasons that Masi did what he did that the FIA does NOT want to
> > > disclose.
> > >
> > > Does that explain it for you?
> >
> > It explains your flawed thinking.
> >
> > Did you consider what their actions should be if they were to admit
> > that the FIA double fucked themselves? If they admit the
> > championship was handed to Max and that the stewards backed those
> > incorrectly made decisions?
>
> And "sacking" Masi somehow doesn't admit that?

Not overtly. They easily made a fool of you, for instance.

>
> >
> > How would that look for the FIA and the sport? Anything there they
> > may wish to keep as quiet as possible about?
> >
> > That you cannot think of any other "reasonable conclusion" speaks to
> > your conceit.
> >

--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-17 8:31 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > What do you want to be that they keep Masi (or possibly "promote"
> > > him)?
> >
> > You have your answer.
> >
> >
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formulaone/article-10523523/F1-Michael-Masi-SACKED-race-director-Abu-Dhabi-Grand-Prix-controversy.html
> >
> > The FIA SACKS race director Michael Masi after his controversial
> > handling of the Abu Dhabi GP...
> >
>
> Nope.
>
> 'While Masi will no longer be race director, he will be offered a new
> role within the FIA.'
>
> If I say, "The Vancouver Canucks have sacked general manager, Jim
> Benning", would you expect that that meant that would still have a
> job with the Canucks if he chose to accept it?
>
> Yes or no.

Stupid question.

No-one is claiming that being sacked doesn't usually mean leaving the
organisation... but not all rectangles are squares.

When a politician is sacked from their role in government does that
mean they will never be offered another role in that same organisation?

Yes or no.

Reply:
Yes for stupid,
No, if you understand.

If you are still claiming stupidity as a mitigating factor then check
the newspapers

https://www.google.com/search?q=masi+sacked

rtr <rtr@haraya.invalid> writes:
> It's stupid to not let the lapped cars through in the first place.

It's stupid to let the lapped cars through in the first place.

*IF* any dicking about with track positions should be done, the far more
sensible thing would be to force the lapped cars to drop to the back,
which could be done very quickly, rather than the idiotic process of
overtaking, speeding around the circuit, and catching up to the back.
That would have the effect of being all the blue flag overtakes for the
foreseeable future being done preemtpively in one go.

Arbitrarily half-implementing a stupid thing is nett worse than fully
implementing a stupid thing, as it draws attention to the stupidity.

Phil
--
We are no longer hunters and nomads. No longer awed and frightened, as we have
gained some understanding of the world in which we live. As such, we can cast
aside childish remnants from the dawn of our civilization.
-- NotSanguine on SoylentNews, after Eugen Weber in /The Western Tradition/

Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> writes:

> rtr <rtr@haraya.invalid> writes:
>> It's stupid to not let the lapped cars through in the first place.
>
> It's stupid to let the lapped cars through in the first place.
>
> *IF* any dicking about with track positions should be done, the far more
> sensible thing would be to force the lapped cars to drop to the back,
> which could be done very quickly, rather than the idiotic process of
> overtaking, speeding around the circuit, and catching up to the back.
> That would have the effect of being all the blue flag overtakes for the
> foreseeable future being done preemtpively in one go.
>
> Arbitrarily half-implementing a stupid thing is nett worse than fully
> implementing a stupid thing, as it draws attention to the stupidity.
>
> Phil

I think Vettel have suggested this ages ago but I've heard that it can't
be done because there's something to do with how doing that will mess up
something in the transponders of the cars which determine the overall
information that race control receives.

I assume they are also tracking a lot of stuff during the race that we
don't know which necessitates that kind of solution rather than just
letting the cars drop back position.

--
|----Give them an inch and they will take a mile.----|
|----------------------------------------------------|
|---------{gopher,gemini}://kalayaan.xyz-------------|
|-C4AE 5D53 46A0 01DF 6E92 CB46 92D7 9FBB AB9F 3E37-|

On 3/4/2022 4:31 AM, rtr wrote:
> Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> writes:
>
>> rtr <rtr@haraya.invalid> writes:
>>> It's stupid to not let the lapped cars through in the first place.
>>
>> It's stupid to let the lapped cars through in the first place.
>>
>> *IF* any dicking about with track positions should be done, the far more
>> sensible thing would be to force the lapped cars to drop to the back,
>> which could be done very quickly, rather than the idiotic process of
>> overtaking, speeding around the circuit, and catching up to the back.
>> That would have the effect of being all the blue flag overtakes for the
>> foreseeable future being done preemtpively in one go.
>>
>> Arbitrarily half-implementing a stupid thing is nett worse than fully
>> implementing a stupid thing, as it draws attention to the stupidity.
>>
>> Phil
>
> I think Vettel have suggested this ages ago but I've heard that it can't
> be done because there's something to do with how doing that will mess up
> something in the transponders of the cars which determine the overall
> information that race control receives.
>
> I assume they are also tracking a lot of stuff during the race that we
> don't know which necessitates that kind of solution rather than just
> letting the cars drop back position.
>

'Dropping back' affects position, but primarily, timing. There is no
other impact.

Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> wrote:
> rtr <rtr@haraya.invalid> writes:
>> It's stupid to not let the lapped cars through in the first place.
>
> It's stupid to let the lapped cars through in the first place.
>
> *IF* any dicking about with track positions should be done, the far more
> sensible thing would be to force the lapped cars to drop to the back,
> which could be done very quickly, rather than the idiotic process of
> overtaking, speeding around the circuit, and catching up to the back.
> That would have the effect of being all the blue flag overtakes for the
> foreseeable future being done preemtpively in one go.
>
> Arbitrarily half-implementing a stupid thing is nett worse than fully
> implementing a stupid thing, as it draws attention to the stupidity.

There isn't a "fair" way to do any of this, but sending them to the back
is definitely not one, and certainly bound to create as many issues.

Suppose the safety car is called when the leader has just passed the 7th
placed driver:

4-5-6 1-7-8-9-2-10-3-11-12...19-20

The gap between 6th and 7th is (say) 2s at this stage. Send the lapped
cars to the back and you end up with the same delay because 2-6 have to
catch up and 7th has to fall back behind 6th...but is now a whole lap
down.

1-2-3-4-5-6 7-8-9-10-11-12...19-20
^ a whole lap behind the cars in front

You have just killed all meaning racing between 1-6 and the rest of
the pack and created two wholly separate races by separating them by a
lap.

Even if you said that the lapped cars didn't have to let the unlapped cars
through at the end of the train:

1-2-3 7-8-9-10-11-12 19-20-4-5-6
^ a whole lap behind the cars in front
^ almost a lap ahead of the cars just in front

you'd still have complaints.

I don't see why you need to unlap the cars necessarily, though I suspect
4-6 would be a bit unhappy about the gap that now stretches out to car
20 which could have been negligible before.

Accept that there's no "zero complaint" solution to this. At least
unlapping has the attraction that every car is now in a position to race
once the SC goes in.

On 2022-03-04 9:11 a.m., Mark wrote:
> Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> wrote:
>> rtr <rtr@haraya.invalid> writes:
>>> It's stupid to not let the lapped cars through in the first place.
>>
>> It's stupid to let the lapped cars through in the first place.
>>
>> *IF* any dicking about with track positions should be done, the far more
>> sensible thing would be to force the lapped cars to drop to the back,
>> which could be done very quickly, rather than the idiotic process of
>> overtaking, speeding around the circuit, and catching up to the back.
>> That would have the effect of being all the blue flag overtakes for the
>> foreseeable future being done preemtpively in one go.
>>
>> Arbitrarily half-implementing a stupid thing is nett worse than fully
>> implementing a stupid thing, as it draws attention to the stupidity.
>
> There isn't a "fair" way to do any of this, but sending them to the back
> is definitely not one, and certainly bound to create as many issues.
>
> Suppose the safety car is called when the leader has just passed the 7th
> placed driver:
>
> 4-5-6 1-7-8-9-2-10-3-11-12...19-20
>
> The gap between 6th and 7th is (say) 2s at this stage. Send the lapped
> cars to the back and you end up with the same delay because 2-6 have to
> catch up and 7th has to fall back behind 6th...but is now a whole lap
> down.
>
> 1-2-3-4-5-6 7-8-9-10-11-12...19-20
> ^ a whole lap behind the cars in front
>
> You have just killed all meaning racing between 1-6 and the rest of
> the pack and created two wholly separate races by separating them by a
> lap.
>
> Even if you said that the lapped cars didn't have to let the unlapped cars
> through at the end of the train:
>
> 1-2-3 7-8-9-10-11-12 19-20-4-5-6
> ^ a whole lap behind the cars in front
> ^ almost a lap ahead of the cars just in front
>
> you'd still have complaints.
>
> I don't see why you need to unlap the cars necessarily, though I suspect
> 4-6 would be a bit unhappy about the gap that now stretches out to car
> 20 which could have been negligible before.
>
> Accept that there's no "zero complaint" solution to this. At least
> unlapping has the attraction that every car is now in a position to race
> once the SC goes in.

I think you're over-complicating this.

Whether you send the cars all the way around or just have them drop
back, you can achieve the same position of cars relative to each other.

The only difference is that if you let the cars drop back, they will
have completed one less lap by count of the times across the finish line.

But that's just bookkeeping.

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-03-04 9:11 a.m., Mark wrote:
> >Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> wrote:
> >>rtr <rtr@haraya.invalid> writes:
> > > > It's stupid to not let the lapped cars through in the first
> > > > place.
> > >
> > > It's stupid to let the lapped cars through in the first place.
> > >
> > > *IF* any dicking about with track positions should be done, the
> > > far more sensible thing would be to force the lapped cars to drop
> > > to the back, which could be done very quickly, rather than the
> > > idiotic process of overtaking, speeding around the circuit, and
> > > catching up to the back. That would have the effect of being all
> > > the blue flag overtakes for the foreseeable future being done
> > > preemtpively in one go.
> > >
> > > Arbitrarily half-implementing a stupid thing is nett worse than
> > > fully implementing a stupid thing, as it draws attention to the
> > > stupidity.
> >
> > There isn't a "fair" way to do any of this, but sending them to the
> > back is definitely not one, and certainly bound to create as many
> > issues.
> >
> > Suppose the safety car is called when the leader has just passed
> > the 7th placed driver:
> >
> > 4-5-6 1-7-8-9-2-10-3-11-12...19-20
> >
> > The gap between 6th and 7th is (say) 2s at this stage. Send the
> > lapped cars to the back and you end up with the same delay because
> > 2-6 have to catch up and 7th has to fall back behind 6th...but is
> > now a whole lap down.
> >
> > 1-2-3-4-5-6 7-8-9-10-11-12...19-20
> > ^ a whole lap behind the cars in front
> >
> > You have just killed all meaning racing between 1-6 and the rest of
> > the pack and created two wholly separate races by separating them
> > by a lap.
> >
> > Even if you said that the lapped cars didn't have to let the
> > unlapped cars through at the end of the train:
> >
> > 1-2-3 7-8-9-10-11-12 19-20-4-5-6
> > ^ a whole lap behind the cars in front
> > ^ almost a lap ahead of the cars just
> > in front
> >
> > you'd still have complaints.
> >
> > I don't see why you need to unlap the cars necessarily, though I
> > suspect 4-6 would be a bit unhappy about the gap that now stretches
> > out to car 20 which could have been negligible before.
> >
> > Accept that there's no "zero complaint" solution to this. At least
> > unlapping has the attraction that every car is now in a position to
> > race once the SC goes in.
>
> I think you're over-complicating this.
>
> Whether you send the cars all the way around or just have them drop
> back, you can achieve the same position of cars relative to each
> other.
>
> The only difference is that if you let the cars drop back, they will
> have completed one less lap by count of the times across the finish
> line.
>
> But that's just bookkeeping.

So you are suggesting crediting those cars who drop back with an extra
lap.

--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!

News <News@Group.Name> writes:

> On 3/4/2022 4:31 AM, rtr wrote:
>> Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> writes:
>>
>>> rtr <rtr@haraya.invalid> writes:
>>>> It's stupid to not let the lapped cars through in the first place.
>>>
>>> It's stupid to let the lapped cars through in the first place.
>>>
>>> *IF* any dicking about with track positions should be done, the far more
>>> sensible thing would be to force the lapped cars to drop to the back,
>>> which could be done very quickly, rather than the idiotic process of
>>> overtaking, speeding around the circuit, and catching up to the back.
>>> That would have the effect of being all the blue flag overtakes for the
>>> foreseeable future being done preemtpively in one go.
>>>
>>> Arbitrarily half-implementing a stupid thing is nett worse than fully
>>> implementing a stupid thing, as it draws attention to the stupidity.
>>>
>>> Phil
>> I think Vettel have suggested this ages ago but I've heard that it
>> can't
>> be done because there's something to do with how doing that will mess up
>> something in the transponders of the cars which determine the overall
>> information that race control receives.
>> I assume they are also tracking a lot of stuff during the race that
>> we
>> don't know which necessitates that kind of solution rather than just
>> letting the cars drop back position.
>>
>
> 'Dropping back' affects position, but primarily, timing. There is no
> other impact.
>

I don't know, maybe. I just said that the specific issue and solution
was already mentioned publicly by Vettel and that's the response that he
got from race control.

--
|----Give them an inch and they will take a mile.----|
|----------------------------------------------------|
|---------{gopher,gemini}://kalayaan.xyz-------------|
|-C4AE 5D53 46A0 01DF 6E92 CB46 92D7 9FBB AB9F 3E37-|

On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 4:00:06 PM UTC-7, rtr wrote:

> I don't know, maybe. I just said that the specific issue and solution
> was already mentioned publicly by Vettel and that's the response that he
> got from race control.

thanks alan

On 2022-03-04 1:31 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-03-04 9:11 a.m., Mark wrote:
>>> Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> wrote:
>>>> rtr <rtr@haraya.invalid> writes:
>>>>> It's stupid to not let the lapped cars through in the first
>>>>> place.
>>>>
>>>> It's stupid to let the lapped cars through in the first place.
>>>>
>>>> *IF* any dicking about with track positions should be done, the
>>>> far more sensible thing would be to force the lapped cars to drop
>>>> to the back, which could be done very quickly, rather than the
>>>> idiotic process of overtaking, speeding around the circuit, and
>>>> catching up to the back. That would have the effect of being all
>>>> the blue flag overtakes for the foreseeable future being done
>>>> preemtpively in one go.
>>>>
>>>> Arbitrarily half-implementing a stupid thing is nett worse than
>>>> fully implementing a stupid thing, as it draws attention to the
>>>> stupidity.
>>>
>>> There isn't a "fair" way to do any of this, but sending them to the
>>> back is definitely not one, and certainly bound to create as many
>>> issues.
>>>
>>> Suppose the safety car is called when the leader has just passed
>>> the 7th placed driver:
>>>
>>> 4-5-6 1-7-8-9-2-10-3-11-12...19-20
>>>
>>> The gap between 6th and 7th is (say) 2s at this stage. Send the
>>> lapped cars to the back and you end up with the same delay because
>>> 2-6 have to catch up and 7th has to fall back behind 6th...but is
>>> now a whole lap down.
>>>
>>> 1-2-3-4-5-6 7-8-9-10-11-12...19-20
>>> ^ a whole lap behind the cars in front
>>>
>>> You have just killed all meaning racing between 1-6 and the rest of
>>> the pack and created two wholly separate races by separating them
>>> by a lap.
>>>
>>> Even if you said that the lapped cars didn't have to let the
>>> unlapped cars through at the end of the train:
>>>
>>> 1-2-3 7-8-9-10-11-12 19-20-4-5-6
>>> ^ a whole lap behind the cars in front
>>> ^ almost a lap ahead of the cars just
>>> in front
>>>
>>> you'd still have complaints.
>>>
>>> I don't see why you need to unlap the cars necessarily, though I
>>> suspect 4-6 would be a bit unhappy about the gap that now stretches
>>> out to car 20 which could have been negligible before.
>>>
>>> Accept that there's no "zero complaint" solution to this. At least
>>> unlapping has the attraction that every car is now in a position to
>>> race once the SC goes in.
>>
>> I think you're over-complicating this.
>>
>> Whether you send the cars all the way around or just have them drop
>> back, you can achieve the same position of cars relative to each
>> other.
>>
>> The only difference is that if you let the cars drop back, they will
>> have completed one less lap by count of the times across the finish
>> line.
>>
>> But that's just bookkeeping.
>
> So you are suggesting crediting those cars who drop back with an extra
> lap.

Why not?

On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 6:39:24 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> Why not?

thanks rtr

On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 17:39:22 -0800, Alan wrote:

> On 2022-03-04 1:31 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>> Alan wrote:
>>
>>> On 2022-03-04 9:11 a.m., Mark wrote:
>>>> Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> wrote:
>>>>> rtr <rtr@haraya.invalid> writes:
>>>>>> It's stupid to not let the lapped cars through in the first place.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's stupid to let the lapped cars through in the first place.
>>>>>
>>>>> *IF* any dicking about with track positions should be done, the far
>>>>> more sensible thing would be to force the lapped cars to drop to the
>>>>> back, which could be done very quickly, rather than the idiotic
>>>>> process of overtaking, speeding around the circuit, and catching up
>>>>> to the back. That would have the effect of being all the blue flag
>>>>> overtakes for the foreseeable future being done preemtpively in one
>>>>> go.
>>>>>
>>>>> Arbitrarily half-implementing a stupid thing is nett worse than
>>>>> fully implementing a stupid thing, as it draws attention to the
>>>>> stupidity.
>>>>
>>>> There isn't a "fair" way to do any of this, but sending them to the
>>>> back is definitely not one, and certainly bound to create as many
>>>> issues.
>>>>
>>>> Suppose the safety car is called when the leader has just passed the
>>>> 7th placed driver:
>>>>
>>>> 4-5-6 1-7-8-9-2-10-3-11-12...19-20
>>>>
>>>> The gap between 6th and 7th is (say) 2s at this stage. Send the
>>>> lapped cars to the back and you end up with the same delay because
>>>> 2-6 have to catch up and 7th has to fall back behind 6th...but is now
>>>> a whole lap down.
>>>>
>>>> 1-2-3-4-5-6 7-8-9-10-11-12...19-20
>>>> ^ a whole lap behind the cars in front
>>>>
>>>> You have just killed all meaning racing between 1-6 and the rest of
>>>> the pack and created two wholly separate races by separating them by
>>>> a lap.
>>>>
>>>> Even if you said that the lapped cars didn't have to let the unlapped
>>>> cars through at the end of the train:
>>>>
>>>> 1-2-3 7-8-9-10-11-12 19-20-4-5-6
>>>> ^ a whole lap behind the cars in front
>>>> ^ almost a lap ahead of the cars just
>>>> in front
>>>>
>>>> you'd still have complaints.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see why you need to unlap the cars necessarily, though I
>>>> suspect 4-6 would be a bit unhappy about the gap that now stretches
>>>> out to car 20 which could have been negligible before.
>>>>
>>>> Accept that there's no "zero complaint" solution to this. At least
>>>> unlapping has the attraction that every car is now in a position to
>>>> race once the SC goes in.
>>>
>>> I think you're over-complicating this.
>>>
>>> Whether you send the cars all the way around or just have them drop
>>> back, you can achieve the same position of cars relative to each
>>> other.
>>>
>>> The only difference is that if you let the cars drop back, they will
>>> have completed one less lap by count of the times across the finish
>>> line.
>>>
>>> But that's just bookkeeping.
>>
>> So you are suggesting crediting those cars who drop back with an extra
>> lap.
>
> Why not?

Fuel usuage, you have just given them an extra laps worth of fuel

--
Your reasoning powers are good, and you are a fairly good planner.

On 2022-03-06 6:20 a.m., alister wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 17:39:22 -0800, Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-03-04 1:31 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-03-04 9:11 a.m., Mark wrote:
>>>>> Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> wrote:
>>>>>> rtr <rtr@haraya.invalid> writes:
>>>>>>> It's stupid to not let the lapped cars through in the first place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's stupid to let the lapped cars through in the first place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *IF* any dicking about with track positions should be done, the far
>>>>>> more sensible thing would be to force the lapped cars to drop to the
>>>>>> back, which could be done very quickly, rather than the idiotic
>>>>>> process of overtaking, speeding around the circuit, and catching up
>>>>>> to the back. That would have the effect of being all the blue flag
>>>>>> overtakes for the foreseeable future being done preemtpively in one
>>>>>> go.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Arbitrarily half-implementing a stupid thing is nett worse than
>>>>>> fully implementing a stupid thing, as it draws attention to the
>>>>>> stupidity.
>>>>>
>>>>> There isn't a "fair" way to do any of this, but sending them to the
>>>>> back is definitely not one, and certainly bound to create as many
>>>>> issues.
>>>>>
>>>>> Suppose the safety car is called when the leader has just passed the
>>>>> 7th placed driver:
>>>>>
>>>>> 4-5-6 1-7-8-9-2-10-3-11-12...19-20
>>>>>
>>>>> The gap between 6th and 7th is (say) 2s at this stage. Send the
>>>>> lapped cars to the back and you end up with the same delay because
>>>>> 2-6 have to catch up and 7th has to fall back behind 6th...but is now
>>>>> a whole lap down.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1-2-3-4-5-6 7-8-9-10-11-12...19-20
>>>>> ^ a whole lap behind the cars in front
>>>>>
>>>>> You have just killed all meaning racing between 1-6 and the rest of
>>>>> the pack and created two wholly separate races by separating them by
>>>>> a lap.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even if you said that the lapped cars didn't have to let the unlapped
>>>>> cars through at the end of the train:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1-2-3 7-8-9-10-11-12 19-20-4-5-6
>>>>> ^ a whole lap behind the cars in front
>>>>> ^ almost a lap ahead of the cars just
>>>>> in front
>>>>>
>>>>> you'd still have complaints.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see why you need to unlap the cars necessarily, though I
>>>>> suspect 4-6 would be a bit unhappy about the gap that now stretches
>>>>> out to car 20 which could have been negligible before.
>>>>>
>>>>> Accept that there's no "zero complaint" solution to this. At least
>>>>> unlapping has the attraction that every car is now in a position to
>>>>> race once the SC goes in.
>>>>
>>>> I think you're over-complicating this.
>>>>
>>>> Whether you send the cars all the way around or just have them drop
>>>> back, you can achieve the same position of cars relative to each
>>>> other.
>>>>
>>>> The only difference is that if you let the cars drop back, they will
>>>> have completed one less lap by count of the times across the finish
>>>> line.
>>>>
>>>> But that's just bookkeeping.
>>>
>>> So you are suggesting crediting those cars who drop back with an extra
>>> lap.
>>
>> Why not?
>
> Fuel usuage, you have just given them an extra laps worth of fuel

And the usage of running around the track at far less than race pace?

These are the LAPPED cars. In the grand scheme of the race, they are
irrelevant.

On 7/03/2022 5:53 am, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-03-06 6:20 a.m., alister wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 17:39:22 -0800, Alan wrote:
>>

>>
>> Fuel usuage, you have just given them an extra laps worth of fuel
>
> And the usage of running around the track at far less than race pace?
>
> These are the LAPPED cars. In the grand scheme of the race, they are
> irrelevant.
>

A situation that I am sure you are extremely familiar with ....

geoff

On 2022-03-06 12:39 p.m., geoff wrote:
> On 7/03/2022 5:53 am, Alan wrote:
>> On 2022-03-06 6:20 a.m., alister wrote:
>>> On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 17:39:22 -0800, Alan wrote:
>>>
>
>>>
>>> Fuel usuage, you have just given them an extra laps worth of fuel
>>
>> And the usage of running around the track at far less than race pace?
>>
>> These are the LAPPED cars. In the grand scheme of the race, they are
>> irrelevant.
>>
>
> A situation that I am sure you are extremely familiar with ....

Actually, I am the second fastest FF driver at our track...

....and that includes a former winner of the SCCA Runoffs.

So... ...I'd say, "Nice try"...

....but it was actually pretty lame.