[Pierre Samoske]

In the last Audi-TT-Race, the participants have been distributed very strange:

Server 1 - 23
Server 2 - 23
Server 3 - 4

I don't know, how this exactly is handled by SRS, but would't it be better,
if the distribution would look like this?:

Server 1 - 23
Server 2 - 17
Server 3 - 10

or

Server 1 - 19
Server 2 - 17
Server 3 - 14

What do u think or know about that?

Regards
Pierre

[Tim Cullingworth]

The way servers on SRS work is that they fill server 1 then server 2 and so on.

In the first race of the series places are entirely based on rating. Further races are based on championship placing and rating.

[Pawel Kusmierek]

Tim, yes, this is how it works in SRS but I think he suggests that it should be changed to more or less even distribution. iRacing does that, I just looked at a random race with 160 participants, splits 1-6 had 12 cars each, splits 7-14 had 11 cars each. (This was on a smaller track this why the number of cars per track was small)

[Rob Russo]

You would want the maximum drivers on the top servers because they "pay" better in points, and less as you move down the server chain.
I think it works best the way it is....imho .

[Pierre Samoske]

Yes, of course a distribution like

Server 1 - 23
Server 2 - 17
Server 3 - 10

or

Server 1 - 19
Server 2 - 17
Server 3 - 14

would be better than

Server 1 - 23
Server 2 - 23
Server 3 - 4

I just think about the "poor" guys on server 3. Do they get any points for the race? I read about 6 minimum drivers... Or maybe this number was for registered drivers overall? I don't remember. But, still "poor", with 3 opponents. I know, if u race with 3 other guys, it can be exciting, but... ah, u know what I mean

[Simon Meisinger]

Agree. Either of those ways of splitting up the servers would be much better.

[Hannu Kuisti]

I would also like to see the splits get more even amount of people.

In addition to that, could the racers top lap time be of any factor in determining what split he/she ends up in? for example I have done two AC MX-5 races in Brands Hatch. In the first one I ended up in second split because of my low rating, and it was a good race, people driving at the same pace as me. The second race, It split three ways, but I ended up in top split, I assume because I had done one race already. The top guys are 3s a lap faster than me. The top of the second split were filled with guys with higher rating, some going over 2s faster than me. Surely I would have been better suited for split 2 or 3.

What I'm saying is, I think my slow lap times in the first race should have pulled me down, rather than my huge experience gained by driving one race pulling me up.

[Martin Smith]

I would also like to see the splits get more even amount of people.

In addition to that, could the racers top lap time be of any factor in determining what split he/she ends up in? for example I have done two AC MX-5 races in Brands Hatch. In the first one I ended up in second split because of my low rating, and it was a good race, people driving at the same pace as me. The second race, It split three ways, but I ended up in top split, I assume because I had done one race already. The top guys are 3s a lap faster than me. The top of the second split were filled with guys with higher rating, some going over 2s faster than me. Surely I would have been better suited for split 2 or 3.

What I'm saying is, I think my slow lap times in the first race should have pulled me down, rather than my huge experience gained by driving one race pulling me up.

This is only a problem for the first few days of a new season, because the server order is ranked heavily based on championship points.

So your "slow lap times" are still way better than NO lap times from many of the people who haven't done a race yet in the series.

[Jay Gabriel]

Nobody would be happy if they raced in all the races of a series, to find out that in the last race they get bumped to the 2nd server, just because the car/track combination is popular and a bunch of higher rated drivers jumped in to have a "fun race."

[Martin Smith]

Exactly. But this is also a separate issue from Pierre's original point, which I think is still a valid concern.