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

[competition cancelled]


#1

Automation/BeamNG Drive challenge

To all car companys.

This is a request from the national police force of Funland
As the ecenomy of our contry has boomed during last two years, and many of our poorly maintained paved roads have been resurfaced, and high amount of our dirt roads have turned in to paved roads, and our wealthier residents have opted to buy high performance vehicles.
Our ageing police cars are now facing a new kind of issue, as many of the high performance car owners try to run away from our police cruisers, and many are doing it rather successfully.
How ever many garavel roads will stay on more rural areas, and the cars need to be capable of handling relatively high speed driving on gravel roads.

Now we are looking to buy over 5000 new police cruisers starting from year 1980 and another 500-1500 in upcoming 5 years.
Currently we have been offered Lolvo 200 series, Bowtie Capiceous, Saapi 90 series, and Blue Oval Victory Crown. How ever we want to give all manufacturers a fair chance of getting this deal

Requirements for the car.
-Capability to hold 160kmh / 100 mph speed on an open road for extended periords, and being drivable in such a speed.
-Capability of mild offroading as officers occasionally have to jump a kerb, and do other similar manouvers in high speed chase.
-5 seats.
-4 door sedan / 5 door wagon
-Basic interior without radio.
-Preferrably slightly understeery nature for safety reasons. (or because I’m driving with controller)
-Max service costs. 650
-Max Price 10500 at 0%
-Max fuel consumption 15l/100km / 16mpg US / 19.2mpg UK
-Min safety 45

Bonus points awarded, but not required
-Automatic transmission
-Catalysator

To simulate the weight of all police equipment we shall change the interior and radio to the heaviest possible option. Therefore we expect the car to be fitted with heavy duty suspension

-All car offers will be first revised only statisticly
-15-20 cars will be placed in shakedown tests on simulated high performance tests.
These tests include:
-Max speed run on high speed oval,
-Slalom handling test
-Emergency drive in city
-Emergency drive in relatively crampt and mostly unpaved industrial site.
-Emergency drive on part tarmac part asphalt roads.
-Last trial for 5 cars. Attempt to stop a fleeing vehicle by any means necessary. This will highly likely damage the cars, so we are willing to buy them with their full price.

Last advice. If the car does well on “Passenger fleet” “Family” “Family utility” or “Commuter” category and in any “Sport, Muscle, Pony” or similar category it most liely is going to perform relatively well.

Cars sent in to competition are to be named. FunPol - [Creator]
Cars to be submitted 15.09.-18

Entrants:


#2

With basic interior, bench seat in the back and the maximum available safety advanced 70s, 45 safety is a bit hard to reach without quality spamming IMO…


#3

Advanced 80’s is avaliable. My test mule (To make sure everything is possible) has 49.1 Safety
With Advanced 80’s Bench seat front and back and +1 on safety it’s on 45.1 Therefore I would say it is completely possible


#4

Ooops, forgot to change the year of the trim I see, my bad!


#5

A car that’s fuel efficient? welp looks like I can’t participate.

If I get it right: the year should be 1980 and for the follow-up '85 or both '80?


#6

As a first note, I support the challenge and the idea… understand my nit pick list isn’t intended to indicate that I think its done in any way poorly.

I’m assuming your driving these cars in BeamNG? If so, you should probably spell that out right at the start… as not only do many people here not own that second game, but handling ect is still very different in some ways between Automation and BeamNG, so scoring split between the two has some issues For example: brake bias has a huge affect on both automation stats (like drivability) and on automation markets, but a correct tune for Automation is very much wrong on a BeamNG car.

Nitpick of requirements by item

-What is “capability to hold 160kmh” meaning in this context? If its a max speed limit thats much different than say, if your concerned how high revs are at that speed…
-Assuming this means in BeamNG… which maps kurbs? Depending on map they vary dramatically… also be warned, while tyre choices may effect chance of a blowout, damage to suspension is determined by BeamNG deformation… which ironically means it becomes harder to damage as the total vehicle mass increases, and the suspension type… but not necessarily in a very logical way (eg: pushrod is second only to solid axles, double wishbone is weakest, despite the real crown vic and even things like the HUMVEE having wishbones IRL, with the McPherson Struts and Multi-links being swapped out of most cars for longer wishbones when ruggedizing\offroadizing for races like the Dakar). Consider specifying a map and calling it “an example of the country” looking for these cars so people can test\experiment on a consistent playing field.
-Exactly 5 seats, or 5 or more? In either case is 2/3 (rear bench) the required setup, or would any combination that yields 5 (or5+) be valid… or example 2/2/2 in a wagon or 3/2 (front bench) in a sedan.
-Is there a benefit to scoring for 5 doors, or do you need to be one of the two to enter?
-Basic\None, but cars are being tested at Handmade\Lux correct? If so, firstly what does this mean for quality placed or removed from these items? A -2 to interior will have a massive weight effect on maxed interiors, yet a very limited reliability, comfort and safety penalty with Basic\None. Secondly are the automation stats for the submission being considered before or after that swap. Thirdly does the specified load capacity (volume or weight) matter at all? If not, there is little reason to not morph away any boot\rear luggage area to reduce vehicle footprint\weight\cost.
-Not a helicopter is sound advice, but a note the tune will vary a lot depending on which wheels are driven… a FWD police car will want to be a lot more aggressive in its neutral throttle handling than a RWD police car, as it will likely understeer on power.
-I’m assuming service costs is total for the trim, rather than just for engine?
-Max price is sensible… probably binding to work around, but it makes sense for a fleet buy… however I’d consider putting a engineering time (ET) limit thats a bit higher than you expect anybody to hit on the trim and motor… this will catch a few choices\quality that don’t really add noticeable cost but do effect stats.
-Fuel consumption limit seems reasonable, but again when\how is it being measured? If its after the heavy interior, or measured in BeamNG you’ll get quite a different result to the Automation number for the trim… and cars that are most efficient “empty” won’t necessarily score well once “full”.
-Others have already noted, but min safety is pretty high. Its not unreachable, but I’d consider a bit lower if you don’t want to restrict people to mono chassis larger, recent (older bodies have safety penalty) car bodies with maxed out safety equipment. This is of course only a problem if it was a side effect of the numbers chosen… if its supposed to be the scope of the challenge then no reason to change.


#7

We are currently talking only 1980, as I intend to drive only 1 car per entrant, but I expect the car to be relatively new model so it will stay in production roughly similar as it is, and isnt discontinued next year.

And trust me, that fuel effeciency isnt that tight by european standards, in fact it’s quite a gas guzzler, how ever it is there to prevent stupidly large turbos, and really high displacement engines.


#8

I have to say that for 1980 the safety requirements are through the roof.
40 Safety could be more sensible


#9

80’s Volvo’s, Saab’s, and Mercedes, were so well built that they were almost on par on late 90’s with much more safety tech, Fullsize American cars, and Audi weren’t too far off from it.
Of course that is assuming that the cars had been maintained well, and the car’s hadnt corroded too much during the years.

I do agree that the safety requirement is somewhat high, but I’d say it’s still reasonable.


#10

Question: in your test model: what engine did you use and what placement?


#11

Front engine tested both FWD and RWD layout, Pushrod V8 4.5l or thereabout, cant remember from the top of my head. I wouldnt be surprised if majority comes with F6 I6 or I4 Turbo


#12

What’s the submission deadline for this? May have a go at building a car.


#13

I just relized that the deadline was missing myself.
Anyhow, 15.09.