Yes. The original Mk2 Stamford was a '78, but when I figured I’d pretend to account for engineering time (around the UE4 switch), I clocked it back to '76; the engine is used in other cars, not refreshed every single trim update (again with imaginary engineering time); as for the safety, the only way I could get the thing to score above 100 - with a decent markup - in any demographic was more safety (that’s actually a carry-over from the lore trim).
That’s a dedication to lore that I don’t think most users in sandbox practice because it just seems so clunky. At any rate it certainly doesn’t impact upon the impression of your car, though you may have handed yourself a technological disadvantage in part…
The rationale behind the Elan M100 was that of all the drivetrains, for any given weight and power, the FWD was faster. That was chiefly because Lotus only really concerned themselves with lightweight cars with not ridiculous power outputs, of course, but that’s precisely the kind of situation this test is about. I expect lower power to weight ratios on average, but I expect these cars to punch well above their weight, especially on the more technical circuits.
Mikonp7 – 1986 Haapala CupSport Streetlegal
Okay you get a big thonk-
-for sending me a completely different car after I gave you an opportunity to retune your first car which had the suspension of a rusty couch. This one isn’t rusty, but it still has some questionable decisions. Why the staggered tyres? The dampers are awfully stiff. A roll angle of 3.6 is basically race car territory for this era. On the plus side the drivetrain part isn’t half bad and it does have a geared diff which is going to make a LOT of difference.
Fuel Economy: 13.8L/100km
Power:weight ratio: 190.93hp:ton
ATT time (Automation): 2:26.03
Ornate – 1991 Akuna Sprinter HF
I’m going to rant a little about a peeve of mine. Most budget cars in real life have far from optimal power curves, but the thing about these power curves is that unless you’re driving an electric car or a CVT it matters that the end of your powerband isn’t too far from where it starts when you shift up, because the acceleration suddenly drops away and it really does make for difficult decisions when driving (hard, at any rate. Who gives a toss what the power curve looks like if you’re not trying to use all the power). This one cuts away pretty sharpish-
far from the lone offender, but also the worst offender
-and the power isn’t even done building at redline because of LOW FRICTION CAST pistons. This is how you know you’re dealing with a proper eco wanker haha. Anyway. This is interestingly shaped, and somewhat far more modern than 1991 would suggest. It also makes some interesting suspension choices (double wishbone rear???) and uses a pretty archaic valvetrain choice (2 valve heads hmmm) in a huge engine. And it has 4 speeds. It’s just little weird things all around. Actually you know what it gives me Citroen vibes like that.
Comfort: 16.6 best overall, not least because of the big fucking cast iron i6 up front
Fuel Economy: 5.7L/100km also best overall, as expected of Ornate
Power:weight ratio: 182.14hp:ton
ATT time (Automation): 2:23.8
Aaron.W – 1992 Tanaka Aventis (4th Gen) - 2.0 TR (3DR)
A hot hatch to compete with the likes of its contemporaries, now we feel like we have a proper competition on our hands. This one seems to be a cup version, with only 2 seats, and…… Sway bars that belong in a race truck. It seems somebody likes to cock wheels harder than a FAAL. Is this going to get really hairy in the corners…
Cost: 11743 most expensive overall!
Fuel Economy: 9L/100km
Power:weight ratio: 169.58hp:ton
ATT time (Automation): 2:25.2
conan – 1992 Mitsushita Jesta Baleno TCS
in contention for most photogenic entry
I was tricked at first. It looked like it was going to be an AWD sedan, but actually it’s much closer to the likes of the Fore Eagle Gti, and the Tanaka Aventis. The numbers and setup are promising. The brakes are a bit on the smaller side but it should be okay. I almost didn’t pay any attention to the rear suspension because the moment I realised it was FWD that kind of mostly ceases to matter, but I’m told it was SOLID AXLE rofl, in the style of a hot Tercel. Ok, I’ll take that, let’s see how it drives.
Fuel Economy: 8.8L/100km
Power:weight ratio: 182.68hp:ton
ATT time (Automation): 2:23.62
Xepy – 1992 Kuma SU Si Coupe (2+2)
One of if not the heaviest FWD cars, but still tuned sharp to give it in theory the best mid-corner grip of them all. On paper it might be able to take the fight to the other giant killer in its class, though its attributes are probably more geared towards high speed tracks.
Fuel Economy: 11.3L/100km
Power:weight ratio: 184.08hp:ton
ATT time (Automation): 2:25.16
Centurion_23 – 1994 Jade-Gemin GLX
This EG cough has wider tyres and a punchier engine, kind of like a stage 1 tune. Being a 90s kid it actually takes me right back to when I used to see so many
of these EGs on the road. It’s not that fast. It’s probably going to have brake fade. But it sure as hell looks like it’s going to be fun.
Fuel Economy: 7.8L/100km
Power:weight ratio: 152.56hp:ton
ATT time (Automation): 2:27.73
Traviq_125 – 1994 Iserim Sol
“You don’t need infinite HP to have fun”. You’re absolutely right Traviq. I guess there is however a point where one needs to have enough, and what is that? But more importantly this test is very much about balancing the dynamics of the car and when there is less power to go around the emphasis is on making the most of the driver engagement. I’m a bit concerned that the dampers are firm but the sway bars are almost non-existent (Miata tuning anyone?) yet the tyres leave something a bit to be desired. As one of the cheapest offerings so far it could be a bargain but is this sacrificing too much?
Cost: 7717 Super Cheap Auto!
Fuel Economy: 8.3L/100km
Power:weight ratio: 135.55hp:ton
ATT time (Automation): 2:35.74 we’ll break out the tea and scones and have a debate about whether the cream or the jam goes on top while we wait
Madrias – 2000 Ishu Astrion 700T
hahaha GOOD LORD I know I wasn’t going to comment on the styling but this looks like an old man face crammed into a blob car. Add to that the old-man colour. This was all about trying something different and, well, yes. I can’t even
Anyway, since I asked for something a bit crazy it also has a 700cc motor in a 4 seater city shitbox. Boosted to a heroic 114hp. It’s light, yes, but the turbo spools at nearly 6k and I can’t imagine this being used at all around town unless you like revving the tits off your daily at 15mph and setting fire to your clutch every time you leave the lights.
Fuel Economy: 6.9L/100km
Power: 114.9hp smallest, weakest, but also highest revving engine!
Power:weight ratio: 133.6hp:ton slowest drag in the entire lineup!
ATT time (Automation): 2:33.18 how is this not the slowest around a track??? stay tuned
In a table, then:
and compared to my car:
but boy are you in for a surprise when you learn how the Fore drives… phew
p.s. I switched the Conditional Formatting so that most expensive is now red and least expensive is green. Makes a bit more sense.
I SWEAR I CAN EXPLAIN!!! (hint: costing and my understand was for something that could be used on a track, not built for the track, but that’s my own fault)
Intermission 1 – Sway Bar Top Tips
Since the whole purpose of this pilot is to try to standardise tuning for Beam, here’s the first in a series of “How to Tune” which will go a long way to explaining the way I critique how cars drive.
As I mentioned before, sway bars and their effect don’t really show up on the Automation metric. In fact most of the metrics they change are more to do with the roll angle which affects “comfort”, and literally the weight balance on the car which is miniscule compared to what they really do. The handling graph similarly will not show the effect because that’s all about static velocity, mid-corner grip.
What do sway bars do anyway? They limit the amount of body roll your car has by limiting the amount of relative suspension travel between each wheel. In my over-simplified way of thinking about it: the grip between the tyre and the road is related to the opposing forces of the road on the car, and the car on the road, but the forces are transmitted through the tyre, then the wheel, then the suspension, then the frame of the car. This means that any time there is any give, there is a loss of immediacy in the transmission of those forces. This is important for road applications, because if everything was perfectly rigid, then any bump you encountered on the road would result in airborne projectile motion, which is obviously bad for grip because then the tyre is not in contact with the road.
So in a sentence, you want to maximise the contact with the road, but also minimise the delay in response otherwise everything gets really wobbly and unpredictable. That’s fine if you’re driving a rock-crawler at 2mph along a boulder trail because you need suspension travel to get through that, but for this challenge, you want to strike the right balance so you can drive fast, change direction etc. and generally feel engaged with the road.
Keep in mind that the racing wisdom is that for the best balance, all else being equal you will want the inside wheel to be barely touching the road mid-corner. Too stiff and the inside wheel loses contact, too loose and you will lose response, precision. Then, there is also the balance between front and rear: within reason, stiffer sway bars on the rear will encourage faster response and an oversteer balance. On the front, it will make the steering more direct, but it will generally encourage understeer. But this must also take into account the weight distribution and the character of the car in the first place. Either way, tuning sway bars is the broad brush stroke on the balance of how a car handles, so this part is generally done first before going to springs and dampers (because those are all about how each individual wheel traverses over bumps and that varies a lot per surface).
Now, I already button-holed Ornate about the handling of his car among other things. Without giving too much away I’m going to home in on the sway bars because it’s a perfect example for what I want to demonstrate. Below is the G force, the simple brake thermals and the weight distribution chart you can find in the UI in Beam:
If you want a graphical representation of what this means, see below:
As you can see, the rear right wheel is cocked. Some people (I’m looking at you, Knightophonix), love this because it gives a certain lairiness to the handling and in fact it is a common attribute of FWD hot hatches of a certain era. That’s precisely the application in which it kind of works, within reason (you’ll see later), as it does encourage the car to get tail happy which means you can actually accelerate through a corner harder and not have the nose run wide as is a FWD car’s wont.
However, up front, is this:
In this kind of situation where there is a big mismatch between the front and the rear, one of two things can happen: 1) the body flexes 2) one wheel stays on the ground and the other lifts off. To put it simply, as this is not a ladder chassis, 2) happened. What this really means is that the car loses responsiveness up front and the lag in steering response actually can literally drag the rear out of line. If you want a demonstration of what this means, try running a moose test and you’ll find that aside from feeling like a bus, you can also actually get the Akuna Sprinter HF to swap ends by simply turning side to side.
This is not exactly desirable behaviour.
For something that is sharper and more balanced and will change directions briskly, let’s look at my reference car, complete with inferior suspension components:
As you can see the weight transfer between the wheels when turning maximally at a static velocity is far more even. The sway bars are not ultra stiff, and they don’t need to be. They’re just where they need to be that I can get the rear end to go light if I lift off/brake while cornering and then straighten up with throttle. In this car that happens to be 1400 and 1200 N/m respectively. I could probably get it to turn even harder and sharper if I stiffened the rear sway bar, but this is how I like it.
If you have Beam I encourage you to play with the set-up while looking at that app, and throwing the car around several corners under different circumstances. If you don’t have Beam, then you should start by more-or-less matching the weight distribution and then go from there depending on the drivetrain and, well, other factors.
Automation\Beamng Handling issue
also, with mine, i’m glad i didn’t send you the original with 195/205 mediums. i tested that in beam and…well…it was, uhhhhh, ‘soapy’
I’m still waiting for your explanation, by the way
the explanation i’m gonna run with is i thought it was i thought it was for a road car that would also work as a track car, and sport tyres pushed us over 10k.
yes, that’s plausible…
okay, so it seems that a number of people would have also gone with that kind of rationale. I think what everybody will find out is that the gap between medium and sports tyres is rather significant, which is why if somebody wants to track a car that doesn’t come with sport tyres, they’d go and put sport tyres on the car already…
…which is something i’m going to have to think about for any real “track car” test since driving a car hard on the track, they’d barely last 1-2 sessions before needing to be replaced anyway.
I’m super excited to see you drive the 950! I have Beam, but only with a joypad it’s hard to get a good idea how the more performant designs do at the limit. It’s definitely one of my personal favorites.
It’s also really cool to see other variations to this theme, very strong lineup.
Well it was designed as a track car…I didn’t expect you to drive over cobbles/bumps/“normal British roads”!
Anxiously awaiting your review of the AWD cars lol
If you don’t have Beam or haven’t opened the Italy map you may be a bit disconcerted to discover exactly what surface the Hill climb track covers… Fortunately the cobblestones aren’t a large section but they do cause cars with very stiff suspension to become very unsettled.
Okay here’s the rest of the field.
By which we mean front-engined AWD, because somebody here thought that mid-engine AWD was too cheaty. Actually it’s pretty expensive, so it would have been harder to make work, but I would have been curious to see how capable some people were at it because it can be a genuinely nice drivetrain to use… provided the car makes enough power. Which at these levels, I would argue that they largely don’t.
AWD has a reputation for being heavier and, especially in front-engine guise, robbing the car of certain character by turning it into a front-heavy plow with lots of traction. Point and squirt. But the canny tuner and driver can turn it into something else. Did anyone achieve that here?
GassTiresandOil – 1988 Armor Cricket GT4
AWD hot hatch well before its time, so it seems. The turbo on this thing is way too large. The powerband is shifted all the way up to the top, definitely not a first stage affair, but the side effect is that the power curve cuts off a little abruptly. This aside I expect it to be a precise and malleable handler even if it’s actually slightly heavier than average (compared to the average entry, not its thicc fellow AWDs). At least it should be more fun than the Germans.
Fuel Economy: 11L/100km
Power:weight ratio: 216.52hp:ton
ATT time (Automation): 2:21.5
gridghost – 1995 Scarab Nova GT-X26
gridghost made no bones about this being a Skyline knockoff, down to the “276hp”. Except this one seems to come with manual lockers which is not something I expected. It’s an interesting idea. But if used as intended I suspect that the tyres would be shredded at an even faster rate than usual. I’m quite curious as to how the handling will change.
Comfort: 1.5 ye boi sitting in a tuned Skyline fo’ sho
Fuel Economy: 10.4L/100km
Power:weight ratio: 244.01hp:ton
ATT time (Automation): 2:18.26 outright fastest because POWAAAAAAA
NeO – 1995 Kitanishi Fleuris SP2000
Sold as a Lan Evo replica, it delivers a literal interpretation of the 276hp AWD with a transversely mounted turbo i4. The basics look pretty on-point. Strong cornering grip, plenty of stopping power, geared LSD. Like the other AWD sedans it is rather heavier and larger. But still being lighter, will it be able to hunt the Scarab down?
Fuel Economy: 9L/100km
Power:weight ratio: 218.18hp:ton
ATT time (Automation): 2:20.88
brunator – 1999 BCT T1001S 525TS
This is gonna be a bad time. Teeny sized hard long life tyres trying to haul 300hp of big boost turbo i5? No upgrades on the brakes? Chunky overly stiff rear sway bar? I don’t even think the AWD is going to help but hey, sign me up, I always wanted to drive a ballistic missile into the Armco hey?
Cost: 10000 you do realise this wasn’t a strict limit, the limit was 12k…
Fuel Economy: 9.7L/100km
Power:weight ratio: 283.34hp:ton yes, indeed the highest power to weight ratio but good lord…
ATT time (Automation): 2:23.21
ELBruno – 2000 Marquez CDD SWS 270i6
The brief read “something different” but I was still not expecting a V60 wagon. Or really what appears to be a Stagea in the skin of a V60, but much cheaper than both (rusty steel inbound!). Already with the front-biased power distribution I’m predicting this is going to be a conservative handler. On the other hand it has comically small wheels so maybe it’s a go-kart in disguise. We’ll see.
Fuel Economy: 11.2L/100km
Power:weight ratio: 210.56hp:ton
ATT time (Automation): 2:18.76 huh? how is this the 2nd fastest on the track when it’s so down on power… interesting
Obfuscious – 2000 Rocinante
You get my other b i g t h o n k-
-for using a patently period incorrect body and what is surely a not-street-legal wing, but hey I did say I wouldn’t disallow it.
The madman did it! My first truck… well, a miniature flatbed which has no business being made in the year 2000 but who cares. I’m also quite sure that wing is not road legal, but again who cares. Very thin tyres, tiny brakes (these are going to melt) and an extremely light rear end are going to make for an interesting time. Also that power to weight ratio. It’s almost the highest in the lineup.
Comfort: 0.8 my butt is hurting thinking about this
Fuel Economy: 13.2L/100km
Power:weight ratio: 257.23hp:ton
ATT time (Automation): 2:20.56
In a table, then:
and compared to my reference car:
OH WAIT SIKE I DIDN’T BOTHER MAKING A REFERENCE CAR LUL
in all seriousness you don’t really need me to tune an AWD car, as there are no real tricks beyond what you can discover from other drivetrains. At least in the scope of this test.
Some say that this is the best drivetrain of them all. The traction off the line for quick acceleration. The light nose nimble and sharp. The weight pitching forward not overloading the front springs. In reality tuning a good MR car is a right bitch because for the uninitiated MR cars can get really flighty under braking, and the weight pitching forward when lifting off can actually cause snap oversteer, and due to the weight distribution this means if one doesn’t have lightning quick reflexes and catch it before it even starts sliding one will die. Add to this the kind of tuner suspension that causes response fast as greased lightning and on the driveway is sitting a deathtrap. No wonder few people actually sent an MR car to this test. Can any of these be tamed?
PugeHenis – 1983 Stelvio O-56
in probably not-street-legal form
This is the one long group B supercar, calling it right now because I’m certain there won’t be another. It takes the fight right to the MM Legatus in terms of origin story and era, but this one comes with rally lights. That said it is much much heavier and the turbo is quite unwieldy. It probably launches much faster than it says it does though this is qualified by whether it’ll stay on line… I’m also assured that it drives very nicely despite the apparent curve, and this is coming from someone who knows how to drive.
Comfort: 0.2 any worse and this would be reportable to Amnesty International
Fuel Economy: 12.6L/100km
Power:weight ratio: 197.02hp:ton
ATT time (Automation): 2:28.52 yeah you should see the handling charts of this thing, Automation is having a total freakout
all I can say is NEVER EVER just drive around with neither pedal depressed. Pussyfooting is punishable by death
Good lord I was wrong, Ornate you are no longer the worst offender
Lava_Cake – 1987 TX7 B6
The best driving car this user has made. That’s a bold claim, always, no matter who said it or how experienced they are, so of course I have to try it. This is a riff on the popular “little NSX” body, MR of course, but with less power and more weight than most of the competition, but in a very civil package. It all looks and seems very tidy on paper. I don’t expect it to exactly set the track on fire but if my first impressions are correct this could be a very “pleasant” drive, because with 3000N/m front swaybars and nothing on the rear it basically is a flagrant attempt to take the MR handling out of the MR car
Comfort: 15.9 sew fanceh
Fuel Economy: 11.9L/100km
Power:weight ratio: 137.13hp:ton
ATT time (Automation): 2:31.21
DoctorNarfy – 1991 Shromet Interval GTS
Shoving a pushrod vee-eight into a small mid-engined sports car, yep. I can think of some people who would love to do that. For most of you though that’s a paddlin’ and I bet that’s exactly why it was done. I’m betting the brakes will be fading by the 2nd lap of the ATT, but as for the rest I have hope that this will combine the best of many worlds.
Fuel Economy: 12.5L/100km
Power:weight ratio: 214hp:ton
ATT time (Automation): 2:19.83
CC9020 – 1992 Fuji RMS GTR Homologation
With a name like that I’m a bit scared. Also with lowered springs like that I’m a bit scared, but more of destroying the undercarriage. The springs are lowered to breaking point almost, so it’s going to run on rails, at least on a flat road. A bump might actually destroy the bump stops. Who knows. The other concern I have is that while the engine is not especially powerful contrary to the name’s suggestion, the brakes are absolutely tiny and they’re probably going to melt. That might put a dent on race proceedings.
Fuel Economy: 8.8L/100km
Power:weight ratio: 176.96hp:ton
ATT time (Automation): 2:23.63
In a table, then:
and compared to my reference car:
this is a pretty mixed bunch which covers all kinds of spectrums hey.
Ever wondered why only one company in the real world persisted and truly succeeded in making performance rear-engined cars work? Harsh reality: because as soon as the engine became powerful enough they had to throw all their effort into mitigating the pendulum-ass character of the 911. Driving a fast rear-engined car is fine as long as you book it in a straight line, but brake too late for a corner and you’ll slam through the barrier ass-first guaranteed. Not surprisingly, the fewest of all, just one brave, one reckless, and one masterful player (I’ll let you argue which is which) tackled the challenge.
Lordred – 1981 Pulsar Defiant
also in contention for beauty contest award
The inspiration isn’t obvious enough eh? Ha. The lightest car in the contest so far, with the most finnicky drivetrain. And the shortest wheelbase. If this isn’t asking for trouble I don’t know what is. Full disclosure: when this first came to me the front swaybar was what I’m going to call “rigid as fuck” compared to the weight of the wheels on it. As a result there was a lot of uneven rocking and jerky handling where I could barely turn under throttle but I would enter every corner backwards. RR cars are mysterious and require a lot of subtlety, and that’s not something that can be achieved by testing the car with a keyboard. That tends to result in a lot of overboard solutions, as I myself would know from years of trying to play sims with nothing but the arrow keys.
Fuel Economy: 13.9L/100km chug chug chug
Power:weight ratio: 217.38hp:ton
ATT time (Automation): 2:25.11
Dorifto_Dorito – 1987 Nohda Strato (82) Super Strato Turbo (87)
and this one too, phwoar what a looker
Prided as the PTSD inducing car, I drove a 700hp version of one of the generations of this car and couldn’t drive it to save my life. This version is presumably less lethal, but it’s still light, short wheelbase and rear-engined so it’ll still be interesting. “Interesting”. The suspension here is pretty firm, and I’m expecting something quite lively. Given this is the same body as the one Lordred used a direct comparison is going to be difficult to avoid.
Fuel Economy: 12L/100km
Power:weight ratio: 214.67hp:ton
ATT time (Automation): 2:44.96 I told you it was almost identical to the Pulsar in many ways
AirJordan – 2000 Smooth Notsomuch
This is a real oddity which is no surprise coming from AirJordan. It’s a coupe with a sedan body, but also it’s rear-engined and seats 2. It’s quite light and tuned to corner hard (which is something I said before I saw the other RR entries). With a pretty soft suspension tune I wonder if the tyres will suffer scrub or will it somehow have a magical mix of handling.
Fuel Economy: 6L/100km sipppppp
Power:weight ratio: 193.41hp:ton
ATT time (Automation): 2:21.8
In a table, then:
and compared to my reference car:
I’ll tell you now. Only one of these is particularly tame, and it’s not mine haha
Summary Table of the Breakdown
Edit: the conditional formatting somehow switched on me and made the higher price show up in green, not sure why it did
Edit 2: @stm316 lol I completely forgot I could align post auto-format
Nothing exciting here people; the real fun starts when I start commenting on the driving. However what you should take particular interest in are the outliers: cars that performed better than expected versus worse than expected for power:weight ratio. Keep in mind that ATT favours cars with absolute power… to a point. The cars that did far worse than expected may have been on medium compound instead of sport tyres… and others were just goddamn finnicky to drive. You’ll see what I found when I get to the “Great Engineer Terrible Driver” section… but before that I’ll give you a preview by commenting on the drive around the technical tracks Hirochi Short and Trial Mountain.
SHIT I’VE BEEN FOUND OUT
I’ll claim brave or reckless, dunno if I would go with Masterful… lol
Actually, I’d initially tuned mine more stiff until I realized I had 0 comfort… oops. I liked the way it drove better on the stiffer suspension, even on the Italy stage. It had more load capacity, too. Wheel rate seems to help especially on cars with very tiny footprints and light weight. I’ll take a skip or two for more controlled body motion (the stiffer suspension was better composed entering the cobblestones, too).
I love that stupid wing. As far as I know there aren’t any laws against it. It’s easier to unbolt a wing than it is to swap wheels if you care more about fuel mileage than hot laps around the lavender farm. Dumb thing is gonna get my car beat on the big tracks, but it’s great on the hillclimb section. And the brakes are probably better than you think. It’s just not that fast on top and it has a big air brake helping. I could get them hot, but not fading on the tracks & distances described in the OP.
I’m looking forward to the driving section, I hope my car makes it to the hill!
edit to add: I forgot to defend my bodystyle choice. I kind of expected the thonk, though. In my defense, there’s still a lot of interest in the original Mini. There’s one on Bring a Trailer this week that was up to US$40k with a couple of days to go… does that justify a knockoff? Zed Motors makes kits to turn your Mini into a motorcycle or Honda powered track toy. VTEC swaps aren’t uncommon and get ink (MightyCarMods). Project Binky. Plus, I totally stretched the cab for legroom! hehe
Hmm, seems like my car lost its widened stance due to exporting and importing just as i suspected :\ ah, well
To be perfectly fair, I couldn’t decide between that or purple… I just knew it needed to be unusual.
I’ve finally finished the 2nd stage of driving: every car around Trial Mountain (and halfway through stages 3, 4 and 5). So while you wait, I’ll shed some light on how I’m hoping to interpret things:
Intermission 2 – The Data Sets
I like pictures. With impressionistic pursuits such as this one, the uneasy marriage of data and feel can be eased with visual representations that give the viewer an immediate gestalt. One way I do this is with the graphs. In lieu of actual statistical analysis as to the distributions and therefore what the best fit test by which to assess the relation between expectation (hypothesis) and result, a picture tells a thousand words, or, even, a set of calculations which I’m not equipped to use.
Having said this, my main premise here is to test performance expectations. The assumption is that each track I’m testing will favour certain cars more so than others depending on their attributes. Tighter twistier or trickier tracks will punish excessive power. Tracks with big straights, simple corners and steep uphill sections will favour higher power. This is all qualified with a couple of corollaries: that the tunes are all equal (they are not), and that there is sufficient handling and power to competitively finish a course in the first place (also not the case).
This is to say that for each phase of the test:
Hirochi Short is a tight technical course on which no car in this test is expected to exceed around 160km/h. It has one medium speed corner, but the rest are either chicanes, slow corners or tightening descending corners which require careful braking. I’m guessing that it will favour lighter cars and largely ignore the power to weight and absolute power numbers insofar as the car is capable of breaking traction with power alone i.e. in this case generally has a power to weight ratio of more than 150bhp:ton
Trial Mountain is a smooth course mostly populated with two long straights and a couple of tight bends but mostly medium speed corners that flow well. It rewards cornering velocity but also power on the straights so expect lighter cars with lower power to weight ratios to start losing out significantly. Anything below 170bhp:ton is going to start losing out.
Automation Test Track is fast. The surface is a bit dustier than others but at this level of performance that won’t matter so much considering it’s mostly straights, simple single-radius corners and there’s only one really tricky part, the Bavarian Bend. I spend close to 80% of the time on WOT and so suffice to say that this track favours power power power except if you really made the car excruciatingly undriveable (as a few of you did )
Mount Glorious is the downhill. The road is good but the track is highly technical and the first half of it is all steep gradient. This will catch cars that are too heavy and don’t have enough effective traction out. It will also punish cars with bad brake balance and sloppy suspension tunes. I’m certain power will still play a role here, but it will be quite blunted.
Italy Ashphalt Hillclimb 2 is the hillclimb (duh). The road however is pretty bumpy, REALLY narrow and there are short cobblestone segments. Power is king in the killclimb but larger cars and fussy suspension setups will be punished severely. Expect higher weight to be a mitigating factor but if a car is doing really badly compared to its power and it is not that heavy, then it may… just be finnicky.
So the true purpose of this test is: assuming that the tracks are a fair representative test of multiple facets of a car’s ability to drive on the limit, we’re going to find out which cars performed better or worse than expected by measuring them against the rest of the group. For this purpose we’ve included my reference cars, but I will label them distinctly.
Now, I was planning to compare the track times by calculating the standard deviations from the mean, but a certain consulting associate reminded me that only really works for normal distributions. The stats that we’re dealing with here are more like a linear distribution, so obviously I should be using more linear measures. By way of illustration, then:
There are a couple of outliers here, which drag the trend line away from following the vast majority of the entries. I’m looking at you, Chickenbiscuit, brunator, Neo, ElBruno and DoctorNarfy. On the other end Madrias and Traviq_125 also fall off the line.
Lordred’s entry and my reference car clearly are the only odd ones out here. I should have used a larger reference RR car but the challenge was too tempting.
I think it’s worth mentioning at this point that brunator’s car runs on HARD LONG LIFE TYRES (why, bro). So all the BCT is going to be good for is ruining my analysis.
Otherwise, with this mostly demonstrated, I’ll simply assert that I can (with a few linear adjustments), measure the relative performance in terms of track times versus each characteristic. I’ve calibrated it to work like a quantifier to the graphical representation on the chart. If the colour of one’s value (when I conditionally formatted) is more red than it is green, the “delta” value is going to be positive, and if it is more green, it will be negative. So for example if a car’s weight is depicted green but the time is more red, then the “delta” for time to weight is going to be positive. I don’t know if that makes sense. You’ll see how it works starting tomorrow or the day after when I reveal the Hirochi Short times.
I thought that 10k was a hard limit, and anyone who has a car will have to change tyres some day, so then they can put sport tyres:rofl: