Not sure if this is intentional or not, but I think I’ve found a weird issue with how engine durability is calculated.
It seems to be affected by how much of the total potential cooling area you’re using, regardless of whether or not you’re reaching potential cooling.
For instance, The styling of my car uses a lot of grilles, giving me a total cooling of ~700 kJ/s. I reduce this to the minimum required by my engine - 381.3 - and BRC Tool says my engine durability is 12.1
But, if I then remove all the other grilles and thereby reduce my total cooling in this case to ~460 kJ/s, then reduce this to my minimum required, BRC Tool says I have 52.5 engine durability.
I don’t see how that works, as in both cases I’m giving the engines the exact same amount of cooling, but it seems to be that being more ‘efficient’ with your cooling (as in using more of the available cooling to cool the engine) allows you to get more durability. Could you explain how that’s calculated etc…?
Hmmm. I think the problem could be that the total cooling value in the model file is not updated. The model file is a total pain in the ass all the time. Please try copying the current trim design to the model template and check if this fixes it. If not, try adjusting something in the car model, for example select another suspension type and switch back again, so that the save files gets updated.
For the future @Killrob@zeussy: would it be possible to have the actual cooling value saved in the trim files? Currently I think only the slider position is saved and the cooling amount is known the model file. Which is the cooling value of the template car and this can be wrong for the trim.
I’ve heard a report that one car (turbo in this case) was showing best times in the test comparable to what it got in-game. By comparison, some others tend to be more than a second slower in-game vs test, for example my NA has been more than a second down in both tests. Can others please confirm on your experience? A second is a hell of a lot of time and testing ingame is most of the basis for fine tuning between tests.
The car I entered I into the last test was doing a 2:14.89 around the ATT, but only achieved a 2:15.75 in the test. It to was NA. I would be interested to see how that works and is calculated.
it will be the weight of the fuel, the weight that that is givern in game is the dry weight (I remeber reading it a while ago somewhere. I think i saw it in a previous brc)
I think it was even somewhere in this 340 posts… You are right, fuel weight plus tyre wear and the fact your driver does not nail every corner. All this leads to slower lap times.
Now some times are faster than in-game. This is due to flying lap times.
So it all depends on circumstances like weather, car setup etc. For instance, your qually lap will be faster than in-game one but if you have high wear and low consumption, your practise laps will be slower because on your first flying timed lap you will have let say 1% less grip and still 50kg more than in-game.
I was running Na in second test and turbo in first and my best brc times are both in couple of tents with in-game times.
I’ve thrown the idea of an F1 engine in a road car right out the window and can’t be happier with my results, around 2:12.8 on the track for just over 580hp and 3.7km/l with just enough money left to buy the race team a decent lunch for the first event!
Considering it’s my first BRC car, couldn’t be happier.
Be careful, this figure tells nothing about how much fuel will your car actually consume. For more info BRC 1966 - Gentleman Brobots Club [RACE 7 P&Q] - #102 by Packbat
If you don’t feel like calculating, you will see what I’m talking about in test on Wednesday. My guess is your car will be quite thirsty
That is good to know, @AirJordan! I have some work to do now. I’ve been going about tuning these engines in a way that is counter productive to what I actually needed to do.
Thing is my gearing for instance makes for first gear to go way into 130+ kph limit, meaning my 0-100 is about 7 seconds. You can lose 2 seconds per standing start lap just by moving the gearing a bit closer to low speeds. Now add to that the fact that on a flying lap the speed at which the car is starting it’s lap is way over 100kph, meaning I’m losing those 7 seconds or so to my acceleration off the line.
While true, we are talking about a sector of a track that will not be used in the championship. Sector 2 is a fine example of straight line speed, while sector 3 is littered with slow and mid-speed corners. I’d gauge my performance on that.
How does the rainfall in the weather forecasts relate to track humidity? Let’s say for example that the rainfall on Diepholz is around the 65% mark for a fairly long time. Does that mean the track humidity will not exceed ~65% in this time or simply that it will increase at a speed of “65 somethings” and stop increasing only when the rain stops? Or does it stop increasing at some other humidity value determined by some other formula(e) that is not necessarily close to 65%.
It seems logical to assume that you can’t reach 100% track wetness without a seriously hard downpour because the water will drain away quicker than it comes down.
In a similar vein, is it in some way possible to dictate what tires are to be put on at pit stops? Do cars automatically start on intermediates/wets if it is already raining at the start?
We then also have to consider the sort of tracks we’re racing on. The cars that do well in Sector 2 will perform well at Hockenheim and Spa, and the cars that do well in Sector 3 should be better on the smaller tracks like Norisring and Diepholz. Interestingly though, those tracks seem to be quite similar in that they have lots of very tight corners and straights in between them, meaning if anything that acceleration will be key on those tracks.
As for track humidity, I seem to remember it being the case that the value for rainfall was the same as humidity. Not sure how that changes over time though and whether this has all been changed for this season.
I wish I could test two of my cars side by side. I have two cars with very similar times and I am not sure which one is better. They are within half a second of each other.
