Home | Wiki | Live Chat | Dev Stream | YouTube | Archived Forums | Contact

2005 GTCC - Global touring car championship


#103

If you used rules for touring cars IRL for the fuel tank size, why not use IRL rules for the regulations and race lengths?

:edit: imo this whole challenge is a mess. Now while I can accept hosting a challenge can be hard, you clearly haven’t thought it out.
All you’ve done is take a spreadsheet of a successful racing challenge and rehashed it without understanding how it works and expecting it to work.


#104

well summed up. what you’ve done is specified the really small things, but not considered the big things.

like you came up with a pretty good ET and PU limit, but failed to consider the basic maths of the race lengths and fuel allowance


#105

yeah, i have to agree myself, i think i overestimated how easy hosting would be.
I have decided to just remove the fuel from the equation, as it is not really needed. Other than that, the spreadsheet works fine and all the other categories on there are important.
If this does not help, i may postpone/cancel the challenge. I am also now choosing the amount of laps for each track so they are all ~20 miles


#106

If im being brutally honest, I think if you want to run a decent challenge, I suggest you postpone for the meanwhile and open it up for discussions on how to make the rules better


#107

Car: 2005 DownForce 20W GTCC spec
Team: DownForce Corsa (DFC)
Driver: Herman Livingston


The DownForce factory team has chosen their wagon for the 2005 season of the GTCC series, for when you have to win the race at 6 and go camping at 7.

Final specs will be added after the deadline on this post


#108

I just want to say, I’m sure it won’t be perfect and there’s no such thing as a perfect ‘game’ (I pretty much see this as a pen & paper RPG!) but I have had an absolute blast designing my car today. I’m sure we will all improve with experience whether we are “players” or “dungeon masters”, and I can’t wait.

A massive thanks to DukeOfHazards for making this happen. I can’t wait to see how I do (I will probably be terrible because this is my first competition! :D)

So here’s my competitor - the Albion Corsair Autosport. Good luck everyone!

There were a few first for me modelling this car - particularly the “vortex generators” (aerials) on the roof inspired by the Lancer Evo X and a few more scoops and vents than I would usually go for!

You guys better watch out - I have a bonnet scoop to cool my windscreen wipers! (more aerials).

I just wish there was an easier way of importing sponsor logos and liveries. I guess we can’t have everything!

Cheers!

@ Dorito_Dorito I know what you mean, but I think the best way to learn would be to run the thing and see what comes out of it. If all of us competitors move forward with the understanding that it won’t be perfect, and try not to get salty about it, we can look forward to a more polished season 2 :slight_smile:

@ Nivracer Snap! We went for the exact same wheel finish :slight_smile:


#111

please dont multi post


#112

#40 Aeros Router Mk.III

Aeros Works Motorsports

Driver: Jimmy Barnes (still no relation)

Car: GTCC-spec Aeros Router Mk.III, promoting the vehicle’s 2005 redesign

everybody noticed the driver’s name, but nobody noticed that I forgot to put door mirrors on it earlier


#113

Agree with Dinkley. It’s not going to be perfect, but I’d prefer it to run and learn from it so the next season could be improved - both the track/hosting and the car designs


#114

I took that as a sign of boastful confidence that you would be so far ahead they wouldn’t be needed!


#115


#116

I will enter this challenge either way, but I’d actually agree with @Dorifto_Dorito here. Learning from mistakes is a good thing, but no reason to deliberately make them. Pragmatically speaking: The only sound reason for @DukeOFhazards not to open this up for discussion would be to avoid the inevitable delay that comes with it, but since this is not a CSR round or anything, I would argue this is pretty much a non-issue.

If DukeOFhazards will take the time to get tips and advice to make this thing better and it ends up being really fun, then I daresay that in the end it will feel a lot more rewarding for him as a host, too.


#117

I will postpone the challenge for a few days starting now (deadline can be extended if anyone wants) to give me time to edit the post, rules and anyone to give suggestions. However, STM has offered to give me some flying lap versions of the tracks do that will no longer be a problem.


#118

Some Discussion/ammendation for rules.

a) I’d reccomend the removal of Requiring space frame.
-They’re meant to be production based racers, not shell cars like NASCAR.

b) Increase the ET and PU to greater than what they currently car
-The current limits are Very, very restrictive. Most cars will end up being specc’d the same because it’s what fits.

c) Mandate Advanced 00s Safety.
-It’s a racing series, they’ll be going fast. They need to be safe.

d) Use 98 or 100 octane fuel.
-These are Racing cars, not street cars, no reason to limit to road fuels. 100 is probably the best to simulate “Race Fuel”

e) allow Turbo Engines up to 1.4L (1400cc) in size
-This can allow teams to use a different approach to building their car, and should be balanced at around 1.4L, but more testing might be needed.

f) Run races to a fixed lap number
-Running races to a fixed laps amount, like 25, is easier for the Calculations, as the one’s you’re using use laps instead of Distance. Much less math on your end.

g) De-restrict panel material to more than just Partial Alu.
-Allow for Steel, CR steel, and Treated Steel to be used as well.


#119

I agree with these recommendations.

I’d also retain the existing wheelbase rules: Longer than 2.5m


#120

I’d be fine having a test race with the current regulations really.

Vri404’s recommendations are of course realistic for a touring championship.


#121

I agree with most of Vri’s suggestions with the exception of:
B (I had no trouble being with the limits, although if the rules will allow different chassis and or panels than it make sense but by a little margin. If PU and ET increase than give us quality points as well, it only makes sens)
C (it’s the same for everybody so why bother)
E (that would mean a lot of testing to level the cars…or maybe you are sure that 1.4 turbo is comparable with 2.0 na, than I agree with you)

maybe go with first season as it is (plus flying laps and fixed number of laps) and than if Duke feels like another season, rewrite those rules.


#122

My submission - the Ddraig Teulu GTCC from the Ddraig Factory Racing team with driver Gethyn Jones.


#123

I’ve done a round of engine testing for consideration and I submit that 1.4L is too much for a turbo engine. Considering my car is never below 6500 RPM on the track, the turbo lag is irrelevant as the turbo motor is always in the power band.

Below is the fattest, gas guzzling tune I could come up with for my N/A 2.0L motor;

Below is a turbo motor that I threw together and kinda tuned a bit, but I’m sure has a bit more in it;

As you can see, a power difference of 79 horsepower is way too much, especially considering it’s less than 10 lbs heavier.

Initial tests indicate even an engine as small as 1000cc’s can be made equivalent or superior to the NA 2000cc motors, both in horsepower output and test track testing. The lighter weight turbo motors provide better weight distribution and improve handling, and don’t sacrifice anything in speed.

Since getting into 900cc motorcycle engines might just break the role playing aspect of the game, I recommend continuation of the existing NA motor requirement.

Edit: Power Graph of 1001cc test motor:


#124

You have to account for fuel eco, reliability and driveability