The table is currently sorted by SUM.
| Pos | Name | Team | Country | C21 | C22 | C23 | C24 | C25 | C26 | C27 | C28 | C29 | C30 | C31 | C32 | C33 | LTB | SUM | REAL |
Latest results
| -4 hrs | Spoonboy | 0:53.88 | Carrera |
| -4 hrs | HerrNove | 0:51.64 | Camaro |
| -4 hrs | HerrNove | 0:53.81 | Camaro |
| -5 hrs | HerrNove | 1:03.32 | Lancia |
| -8 hrs | Cas | 0:53.85 | Camaro |
Shoutbox
- Duplode
- @Argammon That's correct. Another way of putting it: a dual-way switching lap is a lap that needs the dual-way switching bug in order to be valid. This discussion in the ZCT280 Forum thread is also relevant: https://forum.stunts.hu/index.php?msg=95409
- Cas
- From what we discussed in Telegram, I understand @Argammon means like say you take path A, then at some point, you cross or temporarily drive on path B before returning to path A, but it's not DWS because if path B hadn't been there of if it had had a hole in that section that you had gone through, the replay would've still been valid. I think the idea of imagining that the other path doesn't exist to tell if the rule is respected is a very good way to make it objective!
- Argammon
-
Regarding the "dual-way switching is not allowed rule": My interpretation is that a lap is valid if it would also be valid if you cut a hole into one of the pathes. Is that correct? There can potentially occur corner cases in which the car crosses path B before entering path A but wouldn't incur a penalty time if path B didn't exist. I hope my question makes sense.
- Spoonboy
-
Thankyou everyone!
@KyLiE these days for me playing Stunts counts as partying hard
So I guess for my birthday I did both!
Plenty of room to party in the back of my LM002 - HerrNove
- Happy birthday!
- Argammon
-
Ops sent the wrong replay.
0:48.90
- Argammon
-
Happy Birthday @Spoonboy!
- KyLiE
- Happy birthday @Spoonboy! Are you partying hard, or playing Stunts?
- Frieshansen
- Happy birthday @Spoonboy!
- Duplode
-
Happy birthday, @Spoonboy
© Zak McKracken & dreadnaut, 2001–2025