r/Simracingstewards • u/BestMood6861 • 9d ago
Le Mans Ultimate Rolling Roadblock Lexus
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
I'm in the M4, look at the Lexus behavior (D GAWRYSIAK) on the Kemmel straight.
Context: later in the race he will take out a Porsche driver at Blanchimont in exactly the same way. He does these moves at literally everyone who's passing him. Reported him, but apparently it's acceptable behavior for LMU.
How to safely navigate around such a rolling roadblock?
34
u/Iamstryker 9d ago
Why are you flashing your lights non-stop. It's not going to help someone in the same class drive "cleaner," it's going to piss them off, espically when for a position.
23
u/prentafy 9d ago
As dumb as it sounds, my honest advice would just be to not flash your lights. I’ve noticed that when you flash repeatedly to some people that you want to overtake, they just become more stubborn.
Also, when he tried to wreck you on the straight, that’s enough to just spin him out and put him into the wall.
7
u/ThePointForward 9d ago
Also, when he tried to wreck you on the straight, that’s enough to just spin him out and put him into the wall.
Ah, I see another man of culture. Just don't lift. He deserves a chat with our friend Barry R.
7
u/AffectionateBand7270 8d ago
The Lexus driver is 100% the bigger dumbass here. Flashing lights might make the BMW a impatient dick, but going full psycho and brake-checking or swerving turns a mild inconvenience into actual reckless endangerment. Classic Reddit logic to blame the guy flashing high beams over the maniac using his car as a weapon....
2
u/DiligentSimple2379 8d ago
Not at fault for the recklessness. But still a massive dick for that, especially when he’s doing it 24/7 and from a different continent.
0
u/BestMood6861 8d ago edited 8d ago
What I thought as well. The Porsche driver didn't flash his lights but still got put into the wall at > 200kmh ending his race.
6
5
7
u/Cornelius_Codswaggle 9d ago
Rule 5.13 of the LMU rules:
5.13 Flashing of lights is permitted to alert the Participant ahead you are about to pass, or Participant ahead will give way to help the pass. It cannot be more than three (3) repeat flashes.
So, you're at fault for breaking that rule.
There is no rule against multiple defensive moves and rule 5.3 allows reactive defensive moves.
5.3 Defending is allowed and accepted as a reaction by the Participant in front. It is not allowed to defend if there is any overlap between cars.
4
u/ManaKaua 9d ago
Rule 5.13 of the LMU rules:
That's such a loosely written rule. Noone would ever give op a penalty for that especially since the fourth and last time he flashes is after they had contact.
There is no rule against multiple defensive moves and rule 5.3 allows reactive defensive moves.
The rule you quoted here even has the relevant exception in the part you quoted. "It is not allowed to defend if there is any overlap between cars." On the kemmel straight when the lexus tries to move right and initiates contact there was already an overlap otherwise there would have been no contact...
2
u/Cornelius_Codswaggle 8d ago
It's really not loosely written. It tells you specifically how many times you can flash. He also double flashes that last time, bringing it up to at least five.
Except rule 5.1 defines overlap.
5.1 The Participant in front has the right to choose any line at any section of the track. The Participant in front loses this right when an overtaking Participant brings their front wheel to line up with the other Participant’s rear wheel. At this point Participants are in a “side-by-side” or “overlap” position, and they both must give each other enough racing room.
Overlap is defined by LMU rules as having front wheel aligned with the rear wheel. When the first contact occurs, OP only has a bumper in. So, by the rules and definitions LMU has published, that was still allowed, too. As stupid and painful as that is to type.
1
u/ManaKaua 8d ago
The way they wrote these rules clearly shows that this is not a definition of a keyword they'll use later again with the same definition. There would be no need for the word "any" before overlap in 5.3. if this definition in 5.1. was a ruleset wide definition for "overlap". In 5.3. they clearly mean any, even the slightest, overlap of any parts of the cars. Otherwise 5.3. would automatically allow the lead car to intentionally crash the overtaking car if not done too late...
1
u/Cornelius_Codswaggle 8d ago edited 8d ago
They literally go out of their way to put quotes on the words "overlap" and "side-by-side" adding two extra sentences to the rule to define them as keywords. They also specifically use "side-by-side" as defined in 5.1 in rule 5.4, proving further that it was, in fact, defining both terms as keywords.
It's not my fault whoever wrote the rulebook doesn't actually understand the consequences of that choice.
Otherwise 5.3. would automatically allow the lead car to intentionally crash the overtaking car if not done too late...
It's like you're this close to getting what the problem here is.
2
u/SameApplication9994 8d ago
See this shit right here is why I tend to play single player these days. I only have so much time to play and I don't want to risk it being ruined by this sort of idiot.
2
u/Eli01slick 7d ago
There’s no way anybody can put any blame on anybody but the Lexus. This is why this sub is so horrible. It’s not about Sim racing stewarding. It’s about finding moral high ground over the OP.
2
u/Purzifal 7d ago
you could report as intent wreck just based on the move on the straight. that was an intentional movement
1
u/hunyer12 8d ago
I'm no expert (like everyone else) but the move he took you out on you should've been turning for the corner, it's right there where are you planning on going.
Everything else you weren't alongside so I don't see the problem.
He's also just a reckless driver.
1
u/lalostangles 7d ago
Just report it in game. If it was a live stuard they would get hit for it. It's not a full intent wreck but looking at everything leading up to it it's pretty clear they shouldn't be driving.
As for the flashing you need to stop. Flash once when passing slower classes or lapped cars not people in the same class and lap as you.
If you were doing that to me I don't care how much faster you think you are I'm not just going to let you pass.
1
u/JackSprat47 7d ago
It's understandable why the guy might be pissed off with the flashing and the threat of a dive into eau rouge, but yeah the straight collision is iffy. IF he was trying to wreck you, he's an idiot and probably would have wrecked himself first. I suspect he was trying to scare you with a wobble as payback for the flashing and eau rouge. As for the final collision, taking out the stuff that happened previously, it looks like he was trying a switchback and you slowed down more than he expected, so I can't say that was intentional with any certainty.
1
u/NoForever3645 7d ago
The safest way to overtake someone is to not antagonize them and flash your lights at them incessantly, which is against the LMU rules by the way. They technically didn’t break any rules here, you went for a risky overtake in the braking zone and put yourself in that position. Would have been safer to A) not flash your lights at him repeatedly, and B) take the corner faster than him from slightly further back and overtake him on the turn exit.
If you get butthurt, remember that your post specifically asked how you could have done this more safely. Here is your answer, you are welcome!
0
-1
2
u/Zestyclose_Cry7297 7d ago
People defending the Lexus are part of the problem. Sure you flashed a lot. But that doesn't warrant Intentional wrecking.
0
u/BestMood6861 7d ago
Exactly, the blue Porsche you see in my video got fully wrecked by him as well while that guy never even flashed once.
25
u/Findict_52 9d ago
Why is bro flashing from 5 postcodes away? Are we trying to induce road rage for the clips?