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

2005 GTCC - Global touring car championship


#125

i would like to keep the NA rule only, and fuel economy has been removed as its not necessary


#126

Good test. While PMI can maybe, perhaps, accidentially get slightly more out of an 2.0 NA engine, it would never get close to a 1.4 Turbo.

@Vri404 simply suggested this because in reality those were regulation IIRC. Maybe allowing quality sliders with the 2.0 NA and not with the turbo would equalize this.

Drivability and reliability play a role (the turbo will still have better economy) but I doubt the difference is significant enough to matter.

That said, I’m really still advocating giving the proposed regulations a try.


#127

My drivability actually improved with the turbo, by 1.1 points.

Reliability dropped by less than 3 points.

And Fuel Economy as of the current rules, are irrelevant, and as such that 1001cc turbo is running really, really fat.


#128

Yeah, I’m actually fine with the ET and PU limits. I had to really scrounge around and make some sacrifices and test a lot of different things to make it work, which is what it should do. Even just 2 more points would have made my life a whole lot easier, which is perhaps the point. I’ll bet others have made different sacrifices in other areas in the same vain.

I suspect any change in chassis and materials would require an adjustment, probably downward of the ET/PU limits to keep the same challenge. I’d have to build a test chassis to explore this though, I don’t want to upset my “final” build.

------------------------------------EDIT-----------------------------------NEW TEST---------------------------------------

Ok, so, more testing… Changing chassis materials changes a lot. If you just run steel/galvanized steel/monocoque PU drops by roughly 19 points, ET down by I forgot to count, but quite a bit. In addition, weight spikes by apx 140lbs on my wagon test car.

If you did the chassis materials adjustment, you can run every race accessory you want, right down to CF brakes and pushrod suspension and stay well under the 100/40 limits, so if chassis materials were adjusted, ET/PU limits would need to be adjusted downward concurrently.

This may be too cumbersome to deal with, though it would really help with the RP aspect of the challenge, I don’t think it’ll make it any better at this stage.


#129

Try not to double post. use Edit and Tags


#130

OK so what’s the plan now chief? Are the rules final now and you only add flying laps or will you revamp the whole thing?


#131

i will do this 1st season with the rules i said in post 1. There will be flying laps, and im still open to suggestions


#132


#133

Major facepalm as I remember when I was chopping and changing components I forgot to go back and remove the pushrod suspension…!

Oh well, viscous LSD and solid disc brakes for me! Haha

P.S. instead of the vagueries of “no gt-style cars or cars that would have larger engines” it would be clearer to say each car must have 4 passenger doors?

I notice a few already here are hatches or coupes, I’m not saying those should be banned just suggesting some clearer regs for future challenges :slight_smile:


#134

I had no problem getting within the maximum ET and PU, and I don’t find them restrictive at all, they are touring cars so we shouldn’t be able to use every best part that we have available

I’m going to disagree with this one, Automation doesn’t simulate “racing safety” (like a roll cage), or stripped out interior, so having advanced safety is just adding weight and making the cars slower, also adding to the PU and ET.

For an example I was making a challenge based of a real series and found the technical regulations and even with no safety and basic interior at -15 quality I couldn’t get close to the minimum weight that the real series allowed.


#135

Team Dalron Walcroft&Riley Michigan GTCC

Driver: Mike Calligari


#136

If it looks like a tiger and drives like a tiger, then it is most definitely a tiger.

@DeusExMackia I was referring to the car’s black and orange color scheme, which reminds me of an actual tiger - and gives it a ferocious appearance on the outside; hopefully it should perform as well on track as it does on paper.


#137

What are you actually on about?


#138

This was quite obvious to me… It’s even got whiskers!


#139

Oh dear, what have I done…


#140

Bastor, this isn’t weed! :confounded:


#141

Bramble’s motorsports division, White Rose Racing, has been eager for a good challenge for a few years now, so without further ado, we present…

The 2005 Bramble GTCC Challanger, the Acél Scafell!

Fettled by both the Scafell division and the WRR boffins, we here at Bramble are hoping that our estate can take the fight to the competitors. As much Carbon FIbre as possible, a fuel tank where the rear seats should be, and extreme aerodynamics make this one of the most unusual Brambles ever created. Piloted by Aaro Korhonen, our resident Flying Finn, and powered by the traditional Bramble I4 engine, we wish all our competitors the best of luck against the #13 Acél.



The Acél after engine placement, about to be wheeled to the ‘sticker shop’. Note the Scafell Badge taking prominance on the rear of the car, as opposed to the Bramble Logo


#142

Takemi Performance Infini G3 GTCC-Spec

World Motorsport Weekly, Jan. 23 2005:

Recently Japanese car company Takemi officially announced that they will enter the Global Touring Car Championship for the first time in this year’s 2005 series. There have been rumors that Takemi would enter GTCC for almost 2 years now, so this announcement isn’t really that surprising. What has surprised a lot of us is the car that Takemi announced they would use; an Infini.


Takemi has said for years that the 2nd generation Infini, Takemi’s quirky little hot-hatch (Or just a glorified sporty coupe with bigger than usual rear seats and boot space according to some) would end production this year in 2005, with no hints of a 3rd generation or successor at all. And the ‘Takemi Performance Infini GTCC-Spec’ isn’t just a one-off car just bearing the name Infini, Takemi Performance has officially said that the GTCC-Spec “Has the same underlying chassis and platform as the production 3rd generation that will be released next year”, and to “Expect a large amount of what’s in the touring car to carry over to the road-legal car.” And if that is true, then we’re going to see one hell of a car next year.

The GTCC-Spec Infini has a laterally mounted 2L V6 generating 280+ HP powering it. Let that sink in for a moment. They put a V6 in a hot-hatch. Presumably Takemi will increase the displacement for the road-legal version next year, but even if they don’t and just turbo it light they did with the earlier I4’s, there’s still a lot more on the new Infini. An electric LSD and double-wishbone suspension all around are also what’s reported to be in the GTCC-Spec. Even if we don’t get all the goodies like the electric LSD, the 3rd gen Takemi Infini’s looking out to be a very special car for 2006 indeed.

Team: Takemi Performance Global
Driver: Kohei Tamura


#143

I have had a PM addressing an issue of cars using illegal bodies. @Nicholander and @Jaimz also. The car cannot be a “sports” coupe and must be longer than 2500cm, so no cars that are 2495cm rounded up on the body selector. The entry deadline will be extended to the 2nd of may. Today will be the last day of open to suggestions. I will now be using lingredients races (25 laps of all tracks) apart from artondale which will be a 2 lap sprint. Fuel economy will be used with a fuel tanks size of 80l


#144

Can we have pictures of which exact bodies were banned?