I'm going to give my honest opinion on the matter, I dont think their should be an FPS cap at all.
In the simpsons hit and run we allow for any FPS the player feels comfortable playing at and believe me this makes a serious difference in gameplay in terms of how cars and movement work.
So the runners who do have the high end Pc's and what not, will run at 144fps and get a slight advantage but so be it, some people also choose not to do this because it's their preference but they miss out on the advantage.
This isnt a post taking anyone's side just something to consider.

The statement "because it's their preference" assumes that everyone is equally capable of doing that. That is of course not the case. I am not sure how much effect FPS has in hit and run, but it is significant in GTA V. If you believe world records should be determined by hardware rather than skill, that is of course a difference of values that I will have trouble cracking. There is no objective 'best' measure of speedrunning. I view it as skill, you are more comfortable with it being more related to money, we disagree.

I agree with you viper to an extent, of course not everybody has the capabilities especially financially to have high end machines and be able to run at whatever FPS they want But that Is just how it is sometimes i dont think that alone should warrant a cap.
If you look at console speedrunning, more often than not NTCS console loads are a lot better than PAL loads, ill give you two examples being the two main spongebob games (BFBB AND TSSM) which means the NTSC players have an advantage because the PAL players may not be able to afford an NTSC xbox, power converter etc etc.
I think sometimes you can't limit everything and i can understand completely why you would want a cap but again PERSONALLY I dont think it's warranted.

The simpsons hit & run comparison is highly misleading because first, the game's from 2003 and even the most potato of PCs (within reason) even whilst streaming with high quality settings can hit 144fps, and the game becomes unplayable at 200+ fps anyway, so there's no real incentive for anyone to get more hardware to get free timesaves.

I would argue at that Orch, because I know for a fact quite a few runners struggle to hit 125 while streaming or even 90 in some cases with semi decent hardware.
Cyther upgraded only just recently to good hardware after playing on 90 for a good while.

Also the sooner people accept that console speedrunning is irrelevant to PC speedrunning the better off PC speedrunners will be. Console runners having hardware advantages historically, even on examples that seem extremely relevant like GTA console speedruns, while unfortunate, should be ignored, because there weren't any simple ways to deal with those, like you couldn't limit ntsc consoles to 50 or mod pal consoles to 60. Here with PC speedrunning such issues can be identified, and the necessary changes can be made to make it a little bit fairer for everyone.

You can filter the leaderboard to show only console runs, so I don’t see the issue.

The "previous world records will never be beaten" reasoning for the FPS cap is an absolutely awful way of thinking, considering how long the runs are and how much RNG is involved. And why was this brought up now, when Toriks has beaten Viper's PB, and not before? And why is everyone talking about speedrunning being a show of skill and not who has a bigger wallet, when the HDD vs SDD loads are still a thing?

The whole reasoning behind this rule is incredibly flawed.

If I understood Chilly well enough, issues only arise if framerate goes above 120 fps? Based on this line: "Until you go beyond 120fps, that is."

If this is true, wouldn't 120 fps be a good limit then? Sure, some people might not be able to reach it (myself included), so there will still be some 'fork over the money' aspect, but at least it won't be 'fork over as much money as you can, the more the better', but it will have a hard limit. It may cause issues now, but it should be a lot more future proof as PCs evolve.

@s. I think he was saying that above 120 fps you have a breaking of the intended mechanics of the game, this shouldn't really be an issue for speedrunners. It is more an issue that not everyone can do it. At the end of the day, testing of the 90 fps cap seems to suggest things are too far gone for us to really implement anything. I agree that putting a 120 fps cap would have the least negative impact and protect the runs against future incredible powerful hardware, but I think there is a general tone of sickness of the whole discussion. I should have fought harder to have this resolved 11 months ago but I was tired from copping so much from the previous two votes.At least by removing the cap the submitted runs, and the runs on the leaderboards, will once again be congruent. At least we now know how wide spread the impact of FPS is on the game, even beyond car physics.