Home | Wiki | Discord | Dev Stream | YouTube | Archived Forums | Contact

1991 Great Archanean Trek [FINAL RESULTS]


#110

I present to you, the Voiture de rallye Team vila (Team vila rally car). Team Vila is the rally / race tem from the small counry of Vanuata. This is a very new team as Vanuata only became an independent nation 11 years earlier. Because of this, It currently has very little funding, so can only entrer 1 vehicle. It is a completely custom fleet of 3 cars, all the same, And1 driver and co driver. The driver is Ahohako Bule, who is Vanuatuan, and co driver Benoit Boucher, who is Canadian. The team is named afer the capital city of Vanuata, Port Vila.
Here are some pics of the car.


#111

making a buggy out of this and can stuff a 10L but i decided to go a 7.8l instead v8 XD since this in an illegal car time to put some street illegal mods on it.


#112

Team YRD (Yotata Racing and Development) lineup for this years event


Our 1st vehicle is the Yotata F-class custom Buggy covered with a fiberglass MicroSport shell.
Drivers: Jari-Matti Harvetoula (25)-FIN, Marsa Tarjous (32)-FIN

The 2nd Bugghy entry is another custom build, this time with a custom Yotata Megumi body shell from fiber glass
Drivers: Matt Prill (19) -GB, Robert Cleaver (39) -GB

This car will be entering the Offroads class, it is a factory spec yotata Culero Micro fitted with a racing engine and heavy Duty accessories.
Drivers: Keiichi Katsuomoto (42)-JP, Ayako Ayane (31)-JP

The Trucks class entry is this monsterous Yotata Land crusher, it may look stock but its completely rebuilt to take on anything the race can throw at it.
Drivers Norman Davidson (41)-US, Jesse Stutz(29)-US


#113

Bramble Motors has a history in the Great Archanean Trek – and for the 25th running of the event, we are entering our most varied selection ever to take the win. First up is the truck class, the Wyvern B.12a


The definition of the outdoors, and a rock.


The Wyvern Boxer, Project 13/12a, to give its full name, is the 13th vehicle to come out of Dundee based Wyvern Automotive, Bramble’s Van manufacturer. This version has had its engine and suspension comprehensively upgraded, making the Wyvern a threat for the overall, let alone the class, win. This van will be driven by Erik Franks (DEU) and Alex Carrick (GBR).

Next, we’ll cast our minds back to 1966. We entered a heavily modified sports car into the 1966 edition of the Trek, the Bramble Flint. Fitted with a screaming but small V12, the Flint would cause several upsets but was let down by bad luck and mechanical complexity. Why does this matter in 1991?

Because of this, the Bramble Bolero Baja. Based on a small kit car we made to take the running gear of the original Mini in the early ‘70s, we’ve done to the Bolero what we did to the Flint. To remind us of this link to the past, the Bolero’s new engine is the 2-litre example found in some Flints, albeit heavily modified. Considering its basis in the Mini, driver Oliver Townsend (GBR) and navigator Gustav Kristofferson (SWE) are hoping for a bit of that rallying pedigree to rub off on this buggy.

image
Comparison between the standard Bolero and the Bolero Baja - the black square on the Baja’s bonnet is a secondary radiator in case of extreme heat.

The off-road class could have been taken by a dedicated off-roader, but we at Bramble decided to do things differently – and unveil the Bramble Basalt to the public for the first time.


Using the proven Bramble 5 engine – that can trace its motorsport pedigree all the way back to 1952 and the 6 cylinder in the Bramble Envoy – the Basalt is Bramble’s newest addition to the family market. This event should show that the Basalt can be modified for motorsport successfully and taking home the class win would be a dream for this only lightly modified car. Test driver Diego di Silva (PRT) and Francis Brodeur (MCO) are the team for this challenger.

From Lightly modified to the second of our Buggies – which is purpose-built for this event. Taking inspiration from the dune buggies of the 1960s, and after exhaustive testing on the local North Yorkshire Moors, the Bramble Jerboa is the fastest of our four entries, at least in a straight line.



Powered by a rear-mounted 4-cylinder turbocharged boxer engine, the Jerboa is not for the faint hearted – its best described as ‘twitchy’, and the locking differential is highly recommended to be kept on in all conditions. But for those who can harness its wild nature, such as Nigel Hughes (GBR) and navigator Sean Fallon (IRL), the Jerboa is an unbeatable vehicle. If the Bolero can’t take the class win, then the ‘desert rat’ in traditional Bramble livery will get the job done.

Bramble wishes all teams the best of luck and may the best team win!

 3 DAYS BEFORE THE TREK
 It is with great regret that the Bramble Basalt has had to pull out of the Trek due to paperwork
 problems during transit. We apologise for any inconvenience caused and hope the three other
 entries from Bramble and its subsidiaries are successful.

#114

Offroad submission:


Famed race car driver Matt Madison is also an avid car collector. So, when he saw this incredibly rare 1968 Armor Valence 2-door wagon sitting in a field in Indiana, he had to save it. Only problem was… the frame had rotted beyond repair. Matt decided to do what any proper Southern boy would do, and put the restored body on top of a Hevvy S-15 chassis and put giant off-road tires on it.
Matt is still a race car driver, though, so it was only a matter of time before he would test his new toy’s abilities.


#115

Tanaka Racing Factory Team


Category: Off-road
Driver: David Bowman (American)
Co-driver: Haruto Nakamura


In 1991, a mysterious car took part in the Great Archanean Trek. It has a Tanaka badge on it. However, it is not based on any Tanaka road car at the time. It is also mid-engined. No other Tanaka vehicle are mid-engned in the last decade other than the early 80s Tanaka Trinity made for Group B. The car was codenamed “TOP” which stands for (Tanaka Off-road Prototype).


The front of the Tanaka TOP


The 1995 Tanaka Trinity

As you can see, the headlight looks like the 1995 Tanaka Trinity. But of course in 1991, people would not have known that. It has many lights - lights on the roof, the headlight itself and rally lights on the bumper.


The rear of the Tanaka TOP


The rear of a Tanaka 350X

At the rear, Tanaka took whatever that’s left on the parts bin. They used the 1st generation Tanaka X-Series taillights of the 80s. The engine was a Inline 4 from other Tanaka models and then turbocharged.


In conclusion:
The Tanaka TOP was a test mule of the upcoming 1995 Tanaka Trinity in 1991. Participating in this event would give them more research on the AWD system of the Trinity (The Tanaka TOP uses a manual locking differential not found on the Trinity) and also act as a reliability test for the chassis to see if it is strong enough.


#116

Hey, I thought I’d take a look at the course you’re using to test the entries as a benchmark, the East Coast Offroad Trail.

… it’s got bouldering sections that are impossible to cross for just about any and every body you care to count as a Buggy. It’s a challenge even for vehicles with wheel diameters of over 800mm and ride heights of 400mm.

Which is to say I’m looking at this big list of entries of people who are entering coupes and superminis and stuff and can absolutely guarantee that they have no chance in absolute hell of making it through that stage.

So maybe now would be a good time to clarify, must every vehicle be able to pass that stage? Or, what exactly do you mean by “perform something”? I forsee a hell of a lot of DNFs.


#117

I’m not :slight_smile:
I indicated that as a worst case scenario. I will only disclose the tracks after submissions are closed. This is to simulate the unknown factor of what exactly to expect on a trek like that, but it’s a dakar style desert rally, so think undulating sand hills and/or rocky trails (but not rock climbing).

I did clarify that from the onset. Perform something can be interpreted as don’t give a me low riding meme mobile and don’t worry. Actually no, that’s a lie, because then I would have written that. I meant don’t give me a low riding meme mobile, but worry, because a desert rally like that is all about endurance and tension.

That’s untrue, I cleared it with a number of cars made by buggy specification for my own fun. Somewhat bigger tires, ground clearance and low end torque, and a diff lock of some kind optionally linked to a low range gearbox is all you need. You don’t even need all-wheel drive in every single case.

Most would have a chance I think, if it mattered, though agreed, some not.

If an entry DNFs it will have other problems than that. Either fundamental design flaws to allow it to perform even the most limited of offroading (loose sand, higher incline surfaces), or in relation to, well, something communicated to the user after entry (that is equal for all). Those that entered know what I mean, and have not complained. But again there the main goal is to create tension, not to DNF.

(Note: a spanner final for DNF’d entries is foreseen.)


Now, I said more than I want, but do so in the light of earlier communication in another thread. I do however swear to review nothing, but absolutely nothing, in Portuguese.


#118

I already know one vehicle in the spanner final


#119

This here seems well-thought and handled with some professionalism. I trust the host and I am convinced that it will be a fair and exciting challenge.


#120

ok fair enough. I at least understand your intention with regards to the premise. However what I also happen to know is that there’s a lot of behind-the-scenes skepticism about your methods, a lot of which you may be able to do something about if you can humour me.

See, while I’m familiar with track racing and some forms of rally I don’t profess to be that familiar with Paris-Dakar or the rigors of the endurance style rallies. Think of me as someone who would like to enter your challenge as it seems very interesting, and I also have a specific car with rich backstory that I’d like to enter. That is, if I think it can actually make a good showing. I’m not going all out to win here. I just don’t want to waste your time, and I especially don’t want to waste mine. So I don’t know whether to enter this car or not because having completed half a dozen test builds for the buggy class, the only car I was able to clear the latter sections with was this:

with tyre diameter of 800mm and a ride height of 445mm. Actually this didn’t do badly at all, clearing the entire course in well under 4 minutes. I don’t want to submit this car. If it were possible I’d like to submit something more like this:

image

I maxxed out the wheel diameter but I just don’t know if it’s going to be enough

But then I run into this problem:

yep that’s well stuck

Despite a ride height of over 1 foot and basically every off-road friendly option I can come up with.

Toiling away at some nebulous prerequisite I’m not sure I understand, I’m starting to get a bit weary. Maybe since I don’t do it much I just suck at rock-crawling, oh wait, that wasn’t actually relevant to the actual requirements now was it???

Which still leaves me with this question:

I know this is a lot to ask, but if you were able to provide video evidence of this specific claim I reckon you’d blow away all my doubts as to what this challenge is about as well as give me (and some others you may or may not consider) a huge confidence boost in your skills and therefore judging. Not that I actually doubt your skills, but I’ve only seen them with regards to road racing.


#121

Look, @strop, no need for the passive aggressiveness. I like to believe I’m an open and reasonable person that will answer all questions you have.

I know and appreciate you are a competitive person, who pushes himself to perform the best of his abilities, I admire your driving prowess around the track, you know this as well.

My challenges are meant in good fun, and always follow the same premise. I drive a time trail in Beam, giving each car an honest base line with the same driver and same ability (I train the courses in advance). This base time is modified with penalties based on reliability (and depending on the challenge things like fuel consumption and service costs). The penalties are determined on the basis of the Automation stats, the chances by a simple random 1 to 1000 function in Excel.

You have 660 reliability and roll 659 => penalty. 661 ==> no penalty.

This means there’s a relatively big factor of chance involved, and neither the objectively best car, nor the entry I consider the best subjectively, is guaranteed to win in any way. So in that sense, I understand if that’s a waste of time for you. That’s not a negative thing. I respect that a casual challenge, which isn’t really a challenge, but more of a role playing experience, is not for everyone. I will never blame you for thinking that’s a stupid premise.

As for the car, yes the buggy is more than sufficient (and preferred over that odd-looking off-roader for that matter).

I agree on the nebulous prerequisite, but it’s part of how I want this challenge to leave you expecting and somewhat nervous about what will happen to the team. It’s fully intentional in other words.

As for the rock climbing, 4-minutes is extremely fast - a strop achievement like we know it. But other cars are able to pass it a lot slower. And, yeah, sure, I can record a replay over the weekend, that’s not an issue. It’s not much of skill, just a matter of locking your differential and inching forward, picking your route over some of the toughest rocks (and, yes, there are 3 places that with one wrong move will bottom you out and strand you).

On a side note, if for a challenge like this there would be a track like that, and entries would bottom out, I’d simply give them a penalty and use the node grabber to continue, and role play in the report the event. I have no intention to DNF entries unless the random numbers tell me so or the design is just so bad that the car is useless to begin with.



On a personal side note, but something that I do want to underline. Considering the sizable field in every of my competitions, you can calculate how much time I put into my competitions, knowing that I drive each car for up to an hour, next to processing it.

I gladly take feedback to heart, but there’s a choice between being extremely minituous in all input and output, and being lenient but fair. I chose the latter and having a bigger scope. But that doesn’t mean I don’t spend days on each challenge in my free time - which is mostly fun, but sometimes simply work.


#122

As I said elsewhere, I’m not being passive-aggressive; I think you’re vastly underestimating how bad I am at offroading :joy:

yeah that 4 minute trail time? That was me simply ramming the crap out of most of the rocks using the biggest tyres I could find. Not exactly skillful, I’m guessing

That’s actually really helpful info. I’m guessing you already mentioned this in previous iterations but since I’m only getting in on this now I didn’t know perhaps a small appendix or FAQ may help.

And this is exactly why I don’t want to waste your time with an inadvertently rubbish entry. I understand and respect the wish for a free and easy spirit of fun but… the freer the rules the bigger the range of rubbish you can and will get, as you’ve recently observed.


#123

I know you enough to say that no entry of you would ever be classified as rubbish (unless you put effort into that goal, then it’ll surpass even the biggest disaster).


#124

So, I took the last car I built, which was utterly inappropriate for offroading, adapted it to make it fit under my buggy specifications and took it around the course.

It’s just the one run, so I don’t know the car and how it handles inputs at all, I just blindly went into it.
So there are some errors, some readjusting, a stall, and some silent moments of looking around, but here’s the replay (not that interesting at all, but I promised to give. There’s also a weird replay glitch somewhere in the middle, and the occasional crash sounds are overly dramatic compared to actually driving).


#125

OP delivers!

looks like for some of these bodies I may have to also retrofit solid axle coils or I simply won’t have enough ride height (to clear the course). I was hoping to get away without that but in retrospect that may have been a bit optimistic.


#126

That’s a solid choice for offroad, but the car in the replay just had wishbones all round.


#127


The higher-ups at Saxon were sceptical of the fibreglass Ares that had been built for the Trek. Sure, it struck a pose in the photographs and the bodywork was indeed reminiscent of the oh-so-fondly remembered 1963 Ares Coupe, but how viable could it really be? A desperate attempt to recapture some former glory and try to revive Saxon Autosport’s suboptimal public image, designed by committee and built by starry-eyed incompetents, nothing more.
It simply wasn’t representative of the company’s capabilities and the senior management were keen to prove it. They gathered their most trusted engineers and set about putting together not only a competitor to the Ares, but a prototype for the fleet of performance cars they hoped would define their company in the coming decade.
A measly straight-six? The Arthurian has a 780hp V10.
Flimsy fibreglass shell? The Arthurian is aluminium and steel.
Cheap toybox-red paint? The Arthurian would represent a nation in British Racing Green.
They’d show the youngsters behind the Ares project a thing or two about the Autosport in their company name.


Meanwhile a pair of mechanics had been hard at work on their own time. They’d seen the unveiling of the Ares TurboRally and though excited to see their company take an interest in this year’s Great Archanean Trek they still felt a pang of disappointment. Buggy-class, really? It certainly didn’t quite live up to the romanticised James Bond image they had of the original Ares, that’s for sure.
If Saxon was going to enter a buggy into the GAT they were going to do it properly, by crikey!
Working on their own time and without strict approval from their peers they set to work, using whatever parts they could scrounge from the workshop and slowly building up what they’d nicknamed the Sprite. Maybe it sat in a legal grey area with regard to trademark usage, but if they could pull this off right they could well be on their way to that much needed promotion. They clinked their mugs of tea and surveyed their work, looking on with satisfied optimism for the coming rally.


#128


G&W, yes, THAT G&W, released the Sherwood to the Euro market in 1970. Fitted with the almost same engine as found in their Stamford, it was found everywhere from Orkney to northern French fields (when the tractors wouldn’t start).
Two facelifts later, the 1980 US version (powered by the 2.9L Windsor II), identified by the W29 trim badging, was 98KW of almost capable offroading. This particular one had the engine rebuilt in 1988, [mainly for the fitting a of high-flow cat, and a tubular manifold]. Sure, she sucks down dinosaur juice like nobody’s business, but it seems it’ll be a bit better at what it does than it did… until it can’t.

Reliabilty may be another issue, these things are about the experience. Right?

Driver: Glen Campbell (USA) 53 y.o.*
Co-Driver: Reginald Dwight (UK) 44y.o.*

*100% co-incidence with the names and ages.


#129

@Private_Miros would this be acceptable for service costs or do i have to lower it further? this is for my off-road class vehicle