The table is currently sorted by SUM.
| Pos | Name | Members | Logo | C80 | C81 | C82 | C83 | C84 | C85 | C86 | C87 | C88 | C89 | C90 | CORR | SUM |
Latest results
| -1 day | dreadnaut | 0:53.43 | Camaro |
| -2 days | Mark Nailwood | 0:53.66 | Camaro |
| -2 days | HerrNove | 1:11.17 | Vette |
| -2 days | HerrNove | 0:48.64 | Camaro |
| -2 days | HerrNove | 0:48.83 | Camaro |
Shoutbox
- HerrNove
-
The final tunnel entrance remains a mystery for me...
0:49.06
- HerrNove
- Hello @AyrtonC 👋
- Ayrton C
-
Hello!
0:58.65 A
- 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!
© Zak McKracken & dreadnaut, 2001–2025