Open Seat

Built Because a Friend Spent Weeks Recruiting Drivers the Wrong Way

He'd post in Discord servers and wait. Any reply meant scheduling a voice call just to collect basic info. A process that could live on a single web page was strung across weeks of DMs. Sim racing teams aren't organisations with HR departments — the manager is whoever took initiative. Open Seat fits that: drivers connect their iRacing account, get a profile built from verified stats, and managers find them without the friction. iRacing's member site confirmed the gap — the data exists, there's just no discovery layer on top of it.

Current Methods Had No Verification and No Way to Assess Who You Were Actually Dealing With

Observations and four semi-structured interviews — two team managers, two drivers looking for seats — surfaced four problems. Managers had no way to assess candidates beyond word-of-mouth, which was useless to anyone outside an existing network.

Lo-Fi Testing Caught Two Structural Failures Before Visual Design Started

First, the filtering layout failed. A LinkedIn-style filter bar fixed to the top frustrated four of five participants — they had to scroll back up to refine searches after scanning results. A sticky side panel updating results in real time fixed it.

Second, the grid-only layout hid the most important information. Participants had to open a profile just to read a bio — which led to the dual-view system, with list as the default and grid available for rapid scanning.

Design Decisions

Users vet in two stages: eliminate on numbers, then assess on fit. The grid layout supports rapid scanning of non-negotiables — language, time zone, iRating, and car class. The list layout puts biography and human context first. The three-column cap came from what worked in testing.

Both layouts were tested with all five participants. The grid was faster — participants said they'd only use it for last-minute emergencies when any available driver beats a forfeit. For considered team building, the list took longer but every participant felt more confident in their final choice after reading bios, before even opening a full profile.

Interviews kept surfacing the same manager logic: who is this person, how have they performed, who else is worth a look. The profile follows that sequence — bio and endorsements first, performance data second, similar drivers last. Community-verified quotes appear above the fold before any numbers. The four metrics — Race Pace, Qualifying Pace, Consistency, Tyre Management — came directly from interviews. Those were what participants named when asked what separates a fast driver from a good teammate.

The dashboard combines iRating, average finish, safety rating, win rate, and incidents per corner. The focus is who you'd actually want as a teammate, not who posts the fastest lap.

iRating says nothing about the quality of competition a driver actually faced. Showing Strength of Field — the average iRating of all competitors — alongside every result gives each finish meaning. A hard-fought P5 in a high-SoF race ranks above a comfortable win against weak opposition. Directly addresses Problem #3.

My assumption was that eight suggestions gave the most to work with. Five participants proved that wrong quickly — instead of exploring, they scanned back and forth. Five was the limit before the list became noise.

Drivers can add their event interest at the bottom of their profile page — a quick reference for other drivers and managers checking requirements. By this point, unsuitable drivers have likely been filtered out during the search phase already, so this is more of a confirmation than a discovery tool. In testing, users responded well to the notes field, valuing how it let them pass on a driver without needing to message them first if non-negotiables were present in the notes.

Once a manager confirms a driver meets their criteria, messaging can optionally attach a Team Card with combined roster stats — a structured seat offer in a single click, replacing the usual chain of DMs and voice calls. Users can access chats and messages any time via the floating messaging tray at the bottom of any page.

Next Steps: Will Users Use the Messaging System, or Just Take a Discord ID and Leave?

There's a prior question worth being honest with myself about: what does on-platform messaging offer that Discord doesn't? A conversation log tied to a profile, accountability, a record of contact. If none of that matters to users, the system shouldn't exist. Two options: ship the messaging system and see if it gets used, or drop it and surface Discord links directly — making Open Seat an honest discovery tool rather than a communication one.

Reflections