Bogliq Automotive USA (Generations II)
Rigore Automotive [COVID-19 UPDATE]
2020 Automation EOTY Awards
Regarding competitiveness requirements, do they apply to just one region, or more than one?
Also, will there be PU/ET limits for the trim and/or its engine?
First one is a good question. I think best would be to limit it to Gasmea, Fruinia and Hetvesia (similar budgets, large market sizes). It is enough if one of the countries fulfills the requirement.
PU and ET should be covered by affordability and thus by the demographic scores, so I don’t think we need them.
how are we supposed to achieve minimum weight if we are not allowed to ballast the track version?
and ballasting the stock one seems illogical as that tanks the already tight marketing rules
my example is a 2.7L V6 and about 180kgs underweight
The question is: are the current weights too high and impossible to achieve with realistic production-level cars? They should be within the range what’s realistic when we start the challenge.
I must admit that I haven’t built many test cars. It is likely that I have to tweak the values. More data points definitely would help. If anybody wants to support this, please post information here. All data should first of all focus on the production car, not the race car.
<intended Group> - <engine capacity [cc]> - <wheelbase [m]> - <weight [kg]>
Group 2 - 1993 cc - 2.4 m - 1023.4 kg
supplying my first attempt then
Anhultz Dione VI C
Group 1: 2697cc - 2.70m - 1215.5kg - 182kg underweight - 87.5% - 0.092 hp/kg
2nd data point
Anhultz Puck II C
Group 1: 1199cc - 2.03m - 720.7kg - 66kg underweight - 91.6% - 0.066 hp/kg
(more to follow with additional edits)
3rd data point
Anhultz Puck II B
Group 1: 899.6cc - 2.03 - 669kg - 25kg overweight - 104% - 0.053hp/kg
see how the Puck II B is actually legal?
it seems like the current formula makes the weight go WAAY to exponential.
from what i can tell it needs to be more linear, givn that the amount of weight difference increases drastically with displacement
4th Data point:
Group 1: 1796cc - 2.70m - 1130.1kg - 94kg overweight - 108.1% - 0.065 hp/kg
added amount of being underweight
added percentage of weight compared to min. weight (actual / min weight)
added power to weight ratio
this is just a suggestion… but why not remove the minimum weight thing altogether?
actually gonna second this:
with the way the rules work in terms of allowed mods, the only measure needed to MAYBE balance cars against each other is Power-to-weught in race trim
and that could be a fixed value, saving a ton of check-work
Because then you end up with a nonSprite body (or equivalent in current game)
with a 3000cc engine and 800kg.
What fuel should we be using? Sorry if it’s in the rules, I haven’t found it
Group 2 - 1997 - 2.38 - 903.6kg - 82.2kg underweight.
Might be a result of using exponentials on the formula?
Does this mean all 3 or just 1 of the 3?
I know that “no limited production” used to include forged internals, is that still the case?
Just 1 of the 3,
Afaik, forged parts only need forge works, but have no “limited production” flags. So they are not banned.
Banned are basically aluminium and fiber glass for any group other than Group 4.
I think I’ll also include “no spaceframe” in the general rules.
Added a “anything not specified is free” rule to the general section.
There are basically three options for balancing:
- no balancing at all, no minimum weights, no Power-to-Weight formulas, etc: This is the most realistic option, as there has been no such rule for Group 1 to Group 4. The only thing balancing things in the real world was the production number/how much the manufacturer wanted to invest in the homologation specials. My feeling is, that this is a bit too dangerous for extreme exploiting in the Automation world (i.e. 5 liter Sprites).
- simple balancing with a minimum weight/capacity rule - this was actually used in racing regulations, for example Group 5, back in the days. Although the current formulas are apperently unsuited for road-derived cars (they are derived from the Group B rules used in BRC 1976 and already are made a bit more linear). With a few adjustments, these might work out, while still giving you nice engine design/tuning choices.
- Power-to-weight rules: Simple, but limit the player in engine design/tuning freedom. The danger here is to get huge engines with low cam profiles/restricted exhausts in order to achieve a wide powerband. From the balancing perspective, this option is promising the closest competition.
Any opinions? I prefer the second option with tweaks to the formulas and maybe even a fuel tank size per body footprint addition to it (bigger cars have bigger fuel tanks), with the currently given tank sizes being the upper limit (they are directly coming from the FIA regulations). I have the feeling that no additional tanks are allowed (https://historicdb.fia.com/sites/default/files/regulations/1437743288/appendix_j_1970.pdf) and no real road car had 120 liter tanks anyway, so it would make sense to find a reasonable formula for this.
If we added the fuel tank size to the car “dry weight” then this would get us closer to the regulation weights you stated at the start. My car would then be 5kg under. If you cascade the tank sizes down (e,g the 2.5L tank size moved down to the 2L engine) then my car would fit the regulations and give a little “wiggle” room.
Just a thought…
What is the BRC racing sim? Can I download it for free or do you have to pay for it?
I think we all agree I have to up the numbers a bit - by how much is completely free, we don’t have to stick to fuel tank weights.
The exponent is smaller than 1 - if I make it more linear (i.e. closer to 1), it will get worse than it is currently
It is a standalone program I built a few years ago, after I prototyped parts of the car physics and the track simulation in Automation. The program will not be shared, as it contains source code from Automation - I have a deal with the devs about this. But I can run forum challenges - everybody can send me an exported .car file from Automation and I can put it into the race.
A video of an older statusof the implementation can be found here:
This is confusing to me. Which one should we be following? For example, if neither group rules or general rules say anything about increasing tire width (within limits) for the track car, am I allowed to give it wider tires compared to the homologation model or not?
Also, is adding aero allowed?
You can change the tyre width for the race car. If you look at the Escort & MG then they aren’t standard width tyres for the road going variants.
I can’t answer the aero question.