RWF: Rejects World Federation

[FMecha]

Majority for option B, eh?

[ ] Ban double dutying completely - once a driver has signed in a series he cannot compete in other races unless he quits the first series first.
[X] Allow double dutying in special cases only (no clashing races, only a short period of time as a supersub). The driver owner has full responsibility to ensure there are no clashes.
[ ] Let the series decide upon this individually.

[SuperAguri]

One assumes that any one involved in a canon series, owns a team in a canon series or runs a drive in a canon series is allowed to vote?

It would be nice if the canon owners could try and run their series around the same timeframe.

Anyway

[ ] Ban double dutying completely - once a driver has signed in a series he cannot compete in other races unless he quits the first series first.
[X] Allow double dutying in special cases only (no clashing races, only a short period of time as a supersub). The driver owner has full responsibility to ensure there are no clashes.
[ ] Let the series decide upon this individually.

[pasta_maldonado]

As RWRS representative in the RWF, a canon wide ban on double-dutying with small exceptions seems to be the best way forward.

[ ] Ban double dutying completely - once a driver has signed in a series he cannot compete in other races unless he quits the first series first.
[X] Allow double dutying in special cases only (no clashing races, only a short period of time as a supersub). The driver owner has full responsibility to ensure there are no clashes.
[ ] Let the series decide upon this individually.

[Klon]

Formula One representative vote:
[ ] Ban double dutying completely - once a driver has signed in a series he cannot compete in other races unless he quits the first series first.
[ ] Allow double dutying in special cases only (no clashing races, only a short period of time as a supersub). The driver owner has full responsibility to ensure there are no clashes.
[X] Let the series decide upon this individually.

[dr-baker]

[ ] Ban double dutying completely - once a driver has signed in a series he cannot compete in other races unless he quits the first series first.
[x] Allow double dutying in special cases only (no clashing races, only a short period of time as a supersub). The driver owner has full responsibility to ensure there are no clashes.
[ ] Let the series decide upon this individually.

[pasta_maldonado]

Well, it appears everyone has completely misunderstood the purpose of the RWF:

1) Only the 7 approved RWF panel members - Biscione (F1RTA Chair), Salamander (Canon manager), Klon (AltF1 rep), myself (RWRS rep), Nuppiz (AutoReject rep), pi3141 (Enduro rep), and a 7th, so far undecided panel member, can vote. This is to avoid long, drawn out votes on key matters. That's not to say you can't try and influence our opinions, or state your own, but at the end of the day, only the above mentioned members can vote in RWF debates. So, all the votes from non-RWF panel members are invalid.

2) The RWF is *ONLY* for *CANON-WIDE* rules, such as the Driver Entitlement Contracts (DEC) rule. The current topic, a canon-wide ban on double-dutying, would obviously affect all canon series, so is being discussed here.

3) THE RWF WILL NOT MEDDLE WITH SERIES OWNERS, OTHER GOVERNING BODIES OR TEAM OWNER'S AFFAIRS. The purpose of the RWF is to implement rules that apply to all the canon, instead of, for example, telling TMLW that he can only have 25 drivers on the F3RWRS grid or something like that. There are very few rules of this type, so this thread will mostly be inactive, just like the CAS thread.

4) Why do we need the RWF? Because of the mess surrounding the DEC debate. The idea here is that the representatives listen to the what people have to say before voting. Only 6 people can vote to keep the voting phase simple.

[DemocalypseNow]

I still think there can be room for part-time double dutying. Especially with series like ACO LMC. Full-time double dutying (a-la JV Albertini in 2016) shouldn't happen anymore, that much is certain, but there are a number of special points paying champinship events in canon series, where a driver may not be acting as a replacement. We have SuperPrixs, Enduros, and so on.

What I'd suggest as an enforcable rule is that any driver may not participate in more than 20% of any series' calendar that isn't their primary full-time series, apart from exceptional circumstances approved by the relevant series owner(s).

[pasta_maldonado]

I still think there can be room for part-time double dutying. Especially with series like ACO LMC. Full-time double dutying (a-la JV Albertini in 2016) shouldn't happen anymore, that much is certain, but there are a number of special points paying champinship events in canon series, where a driver may not be acting as a replacement. We have SuperPrixs, Enduros, and so on.

What I'd suggest as an enforcable rule is that any driver may not participate in more than 20% of any series' calendar that isn't their primary full-time series, apart from exceptional circumstances approved by the relevant series owner(s).

That seems like a respectable proposal. Obviously, the 20% would be rounded to the nearest whole number.

[the Masked Lapwing]

Well, it appears everyone has completely misunderstood the purpose of the RWF:

1) Only the 7 approved RWF panel members - Biscione (F1RTA Chair), Salamander (Canon manager), Klon (AltF1 rep), myself (RWRS rep), Nuppiz (AutoReject rep), and pi3141 (Enduro rep) can vote.

You say 7 members, and only name 6. #PastaMaths strikes again

[Nuppiz]

Well, it appears everyone has completely misunderstood the purpose of the RWF:

1) Only the 7 approved RWF panel members - Biscione (F1RTA Chair), Salamander (Canon manager), Klon (AltF1 rep), myself (RWRS rep), Nuppiz (AutoReject rep), and pi3141 (Enduro rep) can vote.

You say 7 members, and only name 6. #PastaMaths strikes again

That's because the fate of the F1RICS representative slot is still up in the air. Pasta was originally going to take it over himself but with him cancelling those plans it has been temporarily transferred to Biscione instead. Don't worry, we should get that sorted out by the next season. And yes, I should've clarified the voting rules myself when starting the whole process.

Either way, with four votes on Option 2 the vote has been decided in its favor, and now it's time to decide the acceptable limit on part-time double-dutying. 20% of the total count of events in the "secondary" series has been suggested, which I personally think is a bit high but works if people care enough to ensure there are no clashes before planning anything like that. Which brings us to another subject and that is user responsibility in these matters. The people organising the series should not be obliged to accept one-off entries where the DEC holder has not ensured that there are no clashes. With the help of the wiki calendar page (yes, I really suggest some people to start checking it at least once in a while) it doesn't take long to check which races clash with each other. Now you could argue that it doesn't take long from the series' organiser either, but when they have to check the schedules of multiple drivers those few minutes it takes to check each one suddenly stack up. If we keep expanding the canon at this rate it's going to become a more and more important issue.

[DemocalypseNow]

Well, it appears everyone has completely misunderstood the purpose of the RWF:

1) Only the 7 approved RWF panel members - Biscione (F1RTA Chair), Salamander (Canon manager), Klon (AltF1 rep), myself (RWRS rep), Nuppiz (AutoReject rep), and pi3141 (Enduro rep) can vote.

You say 7 members, and only name 6. #PastaMaths strikes again

That's because the fate of the F1RICS representative slot is still up in the air. Pasta was originally going to take it over himself but with him cancelling those plans it has been temporarily transferred to Biscione instead. Don't worry, we should get that sorted out by the next season. And yes, I should've clarified the voting rules myself when starting the whole process.

Either way, with four votes on Option 2 the vote has been decided in its favor, and now it's time to decide the acceptable limit on part-time double-dutying. 20% of the total count of events in the "secondary" series has been suggested, which I personally think is a bit high but works if people care enough to ensure there are no clashes before planning anything like that. Which brings us to another subject and that is user responsibility in these matters. The people organising the series should not be obliged to accept one-off entries where the DEC holder has not ensured that there are no clashes. With the help of the wiki calendar page (yes, I really suggest some people to start checking it at least once in a while) it doesn't take long to check which races clash with each other. Now you could argue that it doesn't take long from the series' organiser either, but when they have to check the schedules of multiple drivers those few minutes it takes to check each one suddenly stack up. If we keep expanding the canon at this rate it's going to become a more and more important issue.

Which is why the RWF needs enforcing powers in this issue - if anyone is found to run the same driver at the same (canon) time in two different events, the DEC for that driver should be suspended for one (canon) year from the date of the offense, to discourage people from being lazy and not checking these things if they want to attempt double dutying. A suspension, as in, not allowed to compete in any ASMF series for the duration of the suspension. Series owners would become 100% free of the burden of checking for driver clashes. If a driver does two races in different places on the same weekend, both results gets stripped and retconned as a DSQ for entering an "ineligible driver".

[Ataxia]

Well, it appears everyone has completely misunderstood the purpose of the RWF:

1) Only the 7 approved RWF panel members - Biscione (F1RTA Chair), Salamander (Canon manager), Klon (AltF1 rep), myself (RWRS rep), Nuppiz (AutoReject rep), pi3141 (Enduro rep), and a 7th, so far undecided panel member, can vote. This is to avoid long, drawn out votes on key matters. That's not to say you can't try and influence our opinions, or state your own, but at the end of the day, only the above mentioned members can vote in RWF debates. So, all the votes from non-RWF panel members are invalid.

Which pretty much renders the entire thing pointless, since rules like this affect everyone. I appreciate that it would be difficult to get everyone to vote on such an issue, and perhaps I'm being a touch cynical, but having only seven people decide on large scale matters just smacks of elitism. It essentially suggests that the aforementioned members are more important that everyone else.

I would suggest that the entire vote be scrapped, and the introduction of a double-dutying rule to be up to the series' owners discretion. There is no need for any histrionics with regards to driver punishment either, instead such moves should be simply blocked by the series owner. Sometimes series owners miss the memo, and sometimes driver owners who have their time less invested in the goings-on here may not be as conscientious with regards to tracking where their drivers are.

At the end of the day, this sub-section of the forum should be simply a bit of fun. There's no lives on the line, and although I might have been in favour of some order-keeping previously, I had assumed that the RWF board were going to suggest issues for people to debate on. I didn't know that it was going to serve as some kind of canon-wide autocracy.

I think that common sense should prevail, in reality.

[DemocalypseNow]

Well, it appears everyone has completely misunderstood the purpose of the RWF:

1) Only the 7 approved RWF panel members - Biscione (F1RTA Chair), Salamander (Canon manager), Klon (AltF1 rep), myself (RWRS rep), Nuppiz (AutoReject rep), pi3141 (Enduro rep), and a 7th, so far undecided panel member, can vote. This is to avoid long, drawn out votes on key matters. That's not to say you can't try and influence our opinions, or state your own, but at the end of the day, only the above mentioned members can vote in RWF debates. So, all the votes from non-RWF panel members are invalid.

Which pretty much renders the entire thing pointless, since rules like this affect everyone. I appreciate that it would be difficult to get everyone to vote on such an issue, and perhaps I'm being a touch cynical, but having only seven people decide on large scale matters just smacks of elitism. It essentially suggests that the aforementioned members are more important that everyone else.

I would suggest that the entire vote be scrapped, and the introduction of a double-dutying rule to be up to the series' owners discretion. There is no need for any histrionics with regards to driver punishment either, instead such moves should be simply blocked by the series owner. Sometimes series owners miss the memo, and sometimes driver owners who have their time less invested in the goings-on here may not be as conscientious with regards to tracking where their drivers are.

At the end of the day, this sub-section of the forum should be simply a bit of fun. There's no lives on the line, and although I might have been in favour of some order-keeping previously, I had assumed that the RWF board were going to suggest issues for people to debate on. I didn't know that it was going to serve as some kind of canon-wide autocracy.

I think that common sense should prevail, in reality.

What is to say you are the definition of common sense.

What everybody seems to be ignoring is this system was asked for and then validated by other members in discussion. It's not like seven people straight up decided they wanted to run the show without asking everyone first. The panel idea was the one consulted on from the very beginning and had majority backing from many quarters. The scope of the RWF was clearly set out from the very beginning, why the sudden u-turn?

[Salamander]

What Biscione said. We didn't put this together out of nowhere, it was proposed, met with approval, and then implemented. If you don't like it, why did you not say so sooner? And it's not like there is no way for anyone else to get a vote - there is another slot on available to a teams' representative. This is currently empty, as Biscione decided we should not hold everything up by holding a vote for it, and again, nobody complained. You get what you ask for, and nobody asked for anything else. Why complain now?

[pi314159]

Possibly people are complaining now, because RWF was only a concept so far, and they didn't think about the consequences yet. In theory, RWF sounded like a fairer way to make rules concerning the whole canon. But as Ataxia and others correctly pointed out, it gives the RWF members a very important position, and takes power away from those who are really running this subsection of the forums - the series owners. And personally, I would be rather annoyed if I was a series owner and I had no say in the way a new rule is implemented. Having a place for series owners and other people to discuss the possibility of introducing common rules for the various series is a good idea. Having seven people deciding on what the other series should do is a bad idea.

Personally, I am in favour of restricting double-dutying, as it makes life easier for series owners. But if other series owners don't mind having drivers double dutying, why should I have a problem with that? It's not my series, so it's not my problem. I know that stands in contrast to my previous vote, but I realise that it was a mistake.

[Ataxia]

What Biscione said. We didn't put this together out of nowhere, it was proposed, met with approval, and then implemented. If you don't like it, why did you not say so sooner? And it's not like there is no way for anyone else to get a vote - there is another slot on available to a teams' representative. This is currently empty, as Biscione decided we should not hold everything up by holding a vote for it, and again, nobody complained. You get what you ask for, and nobody asked for anything else. Why complain now?

The reason I'm voicing my discontent is simply because I perhaps feel that not everyone is going to have the chance to be fully represented in various canonical matters. No matter how much you want to hide under the "it was asked for" argument, we've got seven people pretty much calling the shots, and despite the claims that they will try to listen to other members' opinions on things you'll still have your own interests squarely at heart. That's not a dig, that's just human nature.

This is more due to my disillusionment with most governing bodies as a whole; they very seldom have the interests of the masses high on their agenda. In short, I don't want to see something that brings a little slice of fun to many members' lives become distorted and destroyed by endless rolls of red tape. Power will be abused, there's no question of that, it always is.

It's not the fact that I don't get to vote on the matters, that doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's just that I feel that my own opinion is less valuable that those of others, and isn't far away from being marked as a "second-class" forumite.

I think Pi's managed to summarise my feelings quite well.

[Nuppiz]

Well then, it's interesting to see how people's reactions towards the Federation have changed now that it's no longer just a theory but an actual thing that's trying to get stuff done. I guess it's understandable, given how radical the concept is.

I see people saying that the current number of panelists is too small and so the concept smells too much like an oligarchy. Perhaps we should increase the number of seats that some of the larger series blocs (like RWRS or AutoReject) could have multiple votes. Or then abolish the panel system altogether and make it like F1RTA, with every series owner being given one vote. But then we might be at the risk of votings being dragged on for a long time while we wait for everyone (or at least a clear majority) to cast their vote. Whatever the case, the Federation in its current form is too unpopular to enforce any new rulings and needs to change before any further decisions are made.

Using my power as the current chairperson, the result of the first vote on double-dutying is declared null and void and every series is left to fend off for themselves for the time being. The topic will also be locked for a couple of days to allow everyone to cool down - once it's reopened, I wish people are ready to come up with suggestions on how to improve the concept.

[kevinbotz]

Both sides have made valid points supporting their respective arguments. On one hand, perhaps the increasing complexity of an ever-expanding ASMF does warrant the greater cohesion and coordination that the RWF offers, especially if it eases the learning curve for newer users. On the other, though I'm sure that the current representatives on the RWF have good intentions at heart, the fact that the RWF could potentially enjoy jurisdiction over series that are not directly represented certainly raises concerns over potential elitism and the disenfranchisement of said series.

In any case, universal representation would address the vast majority of the concerns being voiced at present; the associated inefficiencies would likely be far less than those observed in the F1RTA, as series organizers are generally reasonably active. At the same time, a proviso should be implemented allowing series organizers who either do not wish to participate in the RWF or are inactive to be exempt from any resolutions passed by the RWF, as a way to guarantee the rights of a non-participating series organizer. This in itself would serve as a test for the necessity of the RWF; the number of exemptions would indicate whether or not the ASMF is prepared or willing to be governed under a single supra-canon governing body.

As a final, controversial thought, a resolution should only be ratified if there is unanimous support. This would likely involve a lengthy phase for debate prior to the vote, and potentially further protracts the ratification period. Nevertheless, a decision imposed upon a series, against its will, would again bring into question the motivation of the RWF and potentially compromise the legitimacy of the organization; in any case, before debate was raised over the membership and the scope of the RWF, the abortive vote on double-dutying effectively yielded an unanimous decision.

[Nessafox]

A few suggestions:
-Every series should get its own representative. Every series should decide on its own who is going to represent them. Logically this would be the person who runs the series, but if someone runs multiple series, another forum member can be elected to represent one of these series. Obviously, someone who doesn't compete in a series, will not be allowed to represent them.
-I think we also need a 'drivers representatve', because not everybody in here is running a team somewhere. Also we need to be sure that real-life drivers aren't double-dutying either.
-Every member who has been active in the canon series for 5 consecutive seasons (with the exceptions being health reasons) will be automatically part of the RWF. We can assume people who've been participating for that long on a regular basis do care about it.
-Historical representative: someone who makes sure historic series don't clash with each other and still make sense. This is the same problem as the double-duty rule, but with the additional problem that a driver can die or get injured in a historical series, creating disturbances in the time-continuüm.

I agree with kevinbotz about the 'unanimity' part.

[tommykl]

-Historical representative: someone who makes sure historic series don't clash with each other and still make sense. This is the same problem as the double-duty rule, but with the additional problem that a driver can die or get injured in a historical series, creating disturbances in the time-continuüm.

As the runner of a historical series (the most ancient of them, in fact), I strongly support this proposal. I had to ignore the RNG once, telling me to kill off Carroll Shelby because of a possible clash with the forthcoming 60s sportscar series. I think that such instances should be avoided as little as possible to keep the character of the series intact, seeing as death has already been featured earlier on. A historical representative would help avoid any unnecessary hassle regarding past events that would affect current ones.

[Nuppiz]

-Historical representative: someone who makes sure historic series don't clash with each other and still make sense. This is the same problem as the double-duty rule, but with the additional problem that a driver can die or get injured in a historical series, creating disturbances in the time-continuüm.

As the runner of a historical series (the most ancient of them, in fact), I strongly support this proposal. I had to ignore the RNG once, telling me to kill off Carroll Shelby because of a possible clash with the forthcoming 60s sportscar series. I think that such instances should be avoided as little as possible to keep the character of the series intact, seeing as death has already been featured earlier on. A historical representative would help avoid any unnecessary hassle regarding past events that would affect current ones.

Yeah, that would've been a major problem as there's a number of Shelby-branded cars in the series (which, BTW, will be announced after Aston 24 Hours is done with). Although at the moment the pre-90s canon is quite empty (with only F1WRCR and rFAF1 at the moment, add the 60s sportscar series and we have three), it would be wise for us to have some agreements with each other to avoid stuff going bonkers.

[DemocalypseNow]

I'm going to put something forward here;

The first RWF sanctioned series. With a very specific purpose. The RWF Rookie Cup. A new fourth tier series, but with some very specific restrictions;

1.Only the following members are eligible to act as team managers;
i) Members who own one or less team in the following series combined; F1RWRS, F2RWRS, F3RWRS, AutoReject 3.5, AutoReject 2.0, AutoReject US

2. Only the following drivers are eligible to drive in the series;
a. Drivers who are owned by members meeting the team owner criteria,
b. Drivers owned by any member who have no previous canon experience
c. Drivers who have graduated from the Toyota Reject Racing Series at the end of the previous season,
d. Drivers who have graduated from the Toyota Reject Racing Series within the last three seasons, and have not participated in any other canon series between their last TRRS appearance and their RWF Rookie Cup debut

3. The following DEC limits will apply to series;
a. The standard 10% rule across canon applies to those who meet the team owner criteria set in section 1,
b. DEC holders who do not meet the team ownership criteria are limited to one driver each in the series, with the following exception;
i) Where drivers over this limit have met rules 2c or 2d, the standard 10% DEC rule applies to the combined total of DECs participating

Canon series are jammed full, most series have waiting lists into double figures at this point. Something needs to be done, and I think this is a starting point.

[pasta_maldonado]

I put forward support for this. If there's a way to make the grids as large as possible, then so be it.

[Aerospeed]

So would that basically mean each member would only be able to own one team?

[Salamander]

I think this is a great idea, it'll ensure that there's always a way for new users to enter the canon.

[FMecha]

I've visioned a "Baptism of Fire" style championship personally... so why not?

[Shizuka]

One or less? That's a great idea. (I'm saying this with having two teams, so I'm on the hinge of being eligible)
This gives "less active" players some playground to race in, while not having to worry about full house queues.

[DemocalypseNow]

Something of relevance;

I have decided to change the mechanism with which DEC-less drivers are reassigned. Instead of the TRRS championship, the process will instead be done in the form of elimination; the Race of Rejects. Imagine the Race of Champions, but with a bunch of guys who are on the verge of their careers as pro drivers coming to and end, getting a final throw of the dice to save their livelihood.

Therefore, it will be a spectator series; there will be no teams to enter. The users' focus is simply on offering up contracts to the drivers participating. You'll be able to express an interest in a driver just before the event begins, but again, driver signing won't take place until after the event.

In other words; the racing component will be different, but the driver redistribution mechanism will operate in much the same manner. Drivers are constantly being added to the old 2017 TRRS thread opener; a new thread will be open for the 2018 edition of RoR once IWC/ARIA are finished (I intend to power through the races as fast as I can once all the entries are done and liveries are in).

[DemocalypseNow]

During the downtime some members discussed the possibility of restructuring the format of GPR canon to adapt to the gradual changes that have occurred in the ASMF.

With Alt F1 now firmly rooted in the canon, it seems a little unusual for a top flight series to not have a feeder. At the same time, AutoReject is beginning to reach a point of saturation, containing more than half of all major series in canon on its own.

The proposal focuses on the clear establishment of three rival paths and franchises - FOM/FIA's F1/2/3, AutoReject's World Series/3.5/2.0, and a newly created franchise, Velocity, which will serve the American market.

An illustration of the proposed changes is viewable here. Hopefully this is pretty self-explanatory.

Of course, with such a reshuffle, we would need to build in the possibility of teams trading their series entries to allow those who wish to focus on just one or two of these ladders who might currently have one team at one different level of each ladder were the switch to go ahead.

One small issue at the moment is there is no-one to run the F3 series full time. Three people have agreed to run the series for 2018 in theory, splitting the responsibilities between them, but to be sustainable another member would need to come along and run the show in the forseeable future.

But in terms of the basic premise, what are the thoughts of the PMMF? Is this a step too far? Is it necessary? Is the proposal great as it is? Does it need some adjustment? Post your feedback and vote in the poll so we can take an accurate headcount.

[AndreaModa]

The illustration makes it very clear, I like that. It's obviously something that will ruffle a few feathers but I think we can all agree the canon has got pretty messy up until now, so a restructure like this keeps everything simple and easy to understand. I say go for it!

[Ataxia]

As I've said, it works for me completely. I will continue to run AR2.0 and V3 (formerly 2.0NA) concurrently with a minor change to AR2.0 (ie. upgrading to the GP3 2013 car).

F3, as it stands, would be run for 2018 under a...well, triumvirate of Salamander, Klon and myself as it stands. It's not a sustainable solution, but what we're working on is a simplified, stripped down series which would be attractive enough for someone to take the reins for 2019. We didn't want to let the series die, especially with the restructure proposal, and so I wanted to come on board to a) get the mod together and b) ensure it offers some difference to my other two series. TMLW has, to my knowledge, given us his blessing to continue the series on.

Of course, you're not bound to a particular path; you can allow your driver to hop from ladder to ladder as much as you like, as long as he meets the entry requirements.

[AndreaModa]

Having ended up with a situation where a bunch of teams are running Jones chassis in F3RWRS, I'd like to see it stay in one form or another and I think that having a variety of options for drivers to move about is important.

The new structure effectively puts AR 2.0 on the same level as F3 whereas previously in my mind at least AR 2.0 was the starting point, with F3 the next logical step up. Are there any proposals to fill this F4-style slot with another series? Not saying I think it's necessary, just curious more than anything. I guess if we're struggling to get someone to take F3 on full time then maybe an F4 series might be too far at present.

[Ataxia]

Having ended up with a situation where a bunch of teams are running Jones chassis in F3RWRS, I'd like to see it stay in one form or another and I think that having a variety of options for drivers to move about is important.

The new structure effectively puts AR 2.0 on the same level as F3 whereas previously in my mind at least AR 2.0 was the starting point, with F3 the next logical step up. Are there any proposals to fill this F4-style slot with another series? Not saying I think it's necessary, just curious more than anything. I guess if we're struggling to get someone to take F3 on full time then maybe an F4 series might be too far at present.

We'll be sticking to one chassis for F3, and Klon wanted to use Jones as the chassis provider (as long as you're happy with that).

I don't really think we need a lower series at this stage in time. Drivers have gone straight from AR2.0 to AR3.5 before, and if driver owners are worried their drivers aren't getting enough time in lower divisions they could theoretically sidestep from AR2.0 to V3 or F3. It's pretty open in that respect.

[AndreaModa]

Having ended up with a situation where a bunch of teams are running Jones chassis in F3RWRS, I'd like to see it stay in one form or another and I think that having a variety of options for drivers to move about is important.

The new structure effectively puts AR 2.0 on the same level as F3 whereas previously in my mind at least AR 2.0 was the starting point, with F3 the next logical step up. Are there any proposals to fill this F4-style slot with another series? Not saying I think it's necessary, just curious more than anything. I guess if we're struggling to get someone to take F3 on full time then maybe an F4 series might be too far at present.

We'll be sticking to one chassis for F3, and Klon wanted to use Jones as the chassis provider (as long as you're happy with that).

Cool, yeah that's fine with me!

[DemocalypseNow]

The consultation period has been open for a little while now, and there seems to be a majority consensus for the suggested changes in their current form.

The only things missing from this plan are the following;

1. Aerond being okay with abandoning the F1RWRS name for his series in favour of AutoReject World Series (or similar)
2. The new FIA F3 series having someone permanently in charge of it.

Pasta agreed on the chat some time ago with shifting F2RWRS to FIA F2, Ataxia was fine with AR 2.0E returning to just being AR 2.0, plus AR 2.0NA becoming Velocity 3.

Now would be a good time to post some detailed objections before all this stuff gets pushed through!

[dr-baker]

The only things missing from this plan are the following;

1. Aerond being okay with abandoning the F1RWRS name for his series in favour of AutoReject World Series (or similar)

Could it not just be renamed to GPRWRS? More specifically (I suppose) GP1RWRS/GP2RWRS/GP3RWRS? And for those would will complain of it being too long and unwieldy, is that not what this forum and the former website did so well? ANTSW5PG, HWNSNBM, etc....

[DemocalypseNow]

The only things missing from this plan are the following;

1. Aerond being okay with abandoning the F1RWRS name for his series in favour of AutoReject World Series (or similar)

Could it not just be renamed to GPRWRS? More specifically (I suppose) GP1RWRS/GP2RWRS/GP3RWRS? And for those would will complain of it being too long and unwieldy, is that not what this forum and the former website did so well? ANTSW5PG, HWNSNBM, etc....

Pretty sure you're on your own with that one...

[AndreaModa]

The only things missing from this plan are the following;

1. Aerond being okay with abandoning the F1RWRS name for his series in favour of AutoReject World Series (or similar)

Could it not just be renamed to GPRWRS? More specifically (I suppose) GP1RWRS/GP2RWRS/GP3RWRS? And for those would will complain of it being too long and unwieldy, is that not what this forum and the former website did so well? ANTSW5PG, HWNSNBM, etc....

Pretty sure you're on your own with that one...

Yeah, now's as good a time as ever to do a quick bit of retconning and sorting the whole system out for good.

[dr-baker]

The only things missing from this plan are the following;

1. Aerond being okay with abandoning the F1RWRS name for his series in favour of AutoReject World Series (or similar)

Could it not just be renamed to GPRWRS? More specifically (I suppose) GP1RWRS/GP2RWRS/GP3RWRS? And for those would will complain of it being too long and unwieldy, is that not what this forum and the former website did so well? ANTSW5PG, HWNSNBM, etc....

Pretty sure you're on your own with that one...

Thought I might be...

[Ataxia]

With regards to F3, we're currently looking at using the old FIA F2 car (the Williams JPH1) since a) the templates are nice and easy, and b) it's of a similar power level compared to the 2.0 and V3 cars (I might have to dabble with some down-tuning, but I'd only really be rev-limiting it). Once the proceedings are kicked off - presumably in the real 2017 when TMLW finishes the season - I'll ready up the templates with series-appropriate stickers. There ARE four or five that need doing, but as I said, they're really easy to use; there's one for the nose, two for the air intake and sidepods (although one's just flipping each sponsor horizontally), one for front wing and one for rear.

AndreaModa, you gave your blessing for it to use the Jones name, what chassis number would you like to give it?