I'm Bored (a pilot test for the 2nd FITE ME)

strop · 24 February 2019 03:18

You did say you spent some time on the handling and it shows. I fiddled with it but I don’t think I can find a balance that I really think is nicer.

Okay here’s the rest of the field.

MR

The chief advantage of MR cars is their unique combination of weight distribution and drive type theoretically lending itself to superior road-holding, but as has been said many times, they’re finnicky to tune and to control if you don’t already know what you’re doing. Some here attacked that problem by making it even more finnicky to control lmao. Others did it by trying to take out all of the MR character. And some responded by making a race car without the race-car engine. And one decided that engine should be a V8 because 'murica. Wait, that’s one for each isn’t it.

PugeHenis – 1983 Stelvio O-56

A most interesting handling set. The oversteer characteristic is present but subtle. The reasoning here is that the car is mostly under throttle or under braking in competitive situations and so this is the car that actually is steered by both the brakes and the throttle (but not at the same time). Throttle hard while the car is understeering and it will understeer. Lift off and it will nose in. Apply the brakes hard and it will straighten out. Lift off the brakes and it will also nose in. Use neither pedal with discretion (though I note that the dramatic oversteer characteristic warned about in the graphs is largely absent). It’s an exacting style that doesn’t suit all settings, but it certainly is an interesting one. My major gripe here is that there’s a giant gap in the power band between the gears, and it feels like a yawning chasm between 2nd and 3rd, and about the width of the Pacific Ocean between 3rd and 4th.

Cost: 11117
Format: MR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 0.2
Fuel Economy: 12.6L/100km
Power: 230hp
Weight: 1167.4kg
Power:weight ratio: 197.02hp:ton

strop’s Hirochi Short time: 1:09.986

strop’s Trial Mountain time: 1:59

Lava_Cake – 1987 TX7 B6

This is a very gentle car, one that slowly introduces you to its capabilities and lets you overshoot the mark without punishing you for it. That the sway bars encourage a lot of precision in the front with a heavy understeer balance, and a very slow response in the rear means you have to really try very hard to be a dickhead to make it lose control. In this sense it’s perfect for novices new to the MR car, though for someone like me it’s going to feel a little limited. Beyond the metric, then, this does have a fair bit of the joy of slow-fast in it. If I were to change anything it’d be that the sway-bar treatment didn’t have to be as extreme as it did, as with this power to weight ratio the car isn’t all that prone to lethal handling issues anyway. But if I were to change this car I’d also give it turbo and do a great deal many things to it that probably isn’t in the spirit haha.

Cost: 10100
Format: MR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 15.9
Fuel Economy: 11.9L/100km
Power: 145.8hp
Weight: 1063.2kg
Power:weight ratio: 137.13hp:ton

strop’s Hirochi Short time: 1:11.282

strop’s Trial Mountain time: 2:00

DoctorNarfy – 1991 Shromet Interval GTS

This is such a delight, hearing that meaty V8 burble yet driving a responsive yet pliant mid-engined machine that doesn’t kill you with snap oversteer. It’s thicc but nimble. It’s soft but supple. Flirty but dependable. The brakes overheated less than a lap into the session. By lap 3 the front discs were a pile of molten slag and I crashed into the Armco. Why the fuck did you not ventilate them!? This makes strop a very sad boye. I terminated the test at lap 3 because I made like Shingo and FUCKING DIED.

Cost: 11368
Format: MR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 10.1
Fuel Economy: 12.5L/100km
Power: 251.6hp
Weight: 1175.7kg
Power:weight ratio: 214hp:ton

strop’s Hirochi Short time: 1:07.027

strop’s Trial Mountain time: 1:53

CC9020 – 1992 Fuji RMS GTR Homologation

A 1 ton go-kart. With almost no suspension travel the car corners flat as anything. Ride a kerb of course, and you will definitely feel it as it concusses your spine. The extreme compression also means that the front tyres scrub easily, which creates the not-entirely true impression of a very smooth and gentle cornering characteristic. It’s smooth as long as the road is. And as smooth as your driving. It encourages you to drive smooth. Have I said that enough? When you drive it smooth it actually feels pretty damn great, until of course all your brakes overheat, which they will.

Cost: 9817
Format: MR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 2.6
Fuel Economy: 8.8L/100km
Power: 185.4hp
Weight: 1047.7kg
Power:weight ratio: 176.96hp:ton

strop’s Hirochi Short time: 1:09.594

strop’s Trial Mountain time: 1:54

1983 Matteo Miglia Legatus

This car is a stiletto. It’s about as sharp, as pointy, and as comfy. The handling is exact and exacting. It will tell you precisely where its limits are and how to stay on them. You can give it a poke and get it a bit sideways if you like but that’s playing with fire. As an older car it has less traction and the gearing is wider hence its disadvantage despite being lightweight and relatively powerful, but there’s no denying the sheer cool factor.

Cost: 9231
Format: MR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 4.2
Fuel Economy: 13.1L/100km
Power: 197.3hp
Weight: 884.6kg
Power:weight ratio: 223hp:ton

strop’s Hirochi Short time: 1:07.07

strop’s Trial Mountain time: 1:51

In a table, then:

and compared to my reference car:

4 very different entries, like comparing an apple, an orange, a banana and a tomato…

RR

The real tricky one. When I looked up real life examples of rear-engined cars (aside from Porsche of course) I found that most of them had rather low power outputs with the notable exception of a couple of the A310 trims, and the A310 doesn’t really have a short wheelbase. I suspect that the handling characteristics one could colloquially refer to as instant death would have discouraged much flirtation with the kind of power to weight ratios as we were bandying about here. There may have been only 3 entries but of all the classes I shed the most sweat driving these. Well, 2 of them. One of them was a doddle.

Lordred – 1981 Pulsar Defiant

It’s not easy tuning a rear-engined car with a short wheel base. Especially when it’s really light. These things have some real character and quirks that require a driver who is already used to it and even then driving it on the limit is hard, particularly because the tendency to get flighty under brakes is exacerbated by the relatively instability of the power oversteer because the wheels are all so close together. Also as this car is the oldest in the lineup, it appears to be slow for its power, but in fact it does carry a few tricks up its sleeve and if mastered can dart into a corner with a very late braking point. Doing this does take extreme precision, though.

Cost: 9518
Format: RR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 2.6
Fuel Economy: 13.9L/100km
Power: 142.6hp
Weight: 656kg
Power:weight ratio: 217.38hp:ton

strop’s Hirochi Short time: 1:09.575

strop’s Trial Mountain time: 1:57

Dorifto_Dorito – 1987 Nohda Strato (82) Super Strato Turbo (87)

This is even more binary than Lordred’s Pulsar. There is simultaneously more and less give in the suspension, meaning that it lurches harder and kicks out more and is also even harder to time the catch when pendulum oversteering. Whereas the Pulsar was a bit self-limiting in its behaviour, there’s no such limit here and getting careless on the brakes here for even a quarter of a second too much results in swapping ends. Ultimately the way to drive this around a technical track with tightening and loosening curves was to approach the line very very evenly and reserved, with the exception of certain chained corners in which the power oversteer option was attractive, but only under 110km/h, because more than that and the car didn’t have enough power to light up the rears and all that happened was a hugely unnecessary loss of speed. Technically the way to drive a rear-engined car is to brake ultra late and to turn with the butt, but the timing was just too too difficult to do it consistently.

Cost: 9461
Format: RR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 11.4
Fuel Economy: 12L/100km
Power: 163.9hp
Weight: 763.5kg
Power:weight ratio: 214.67hp:ton

strop’s Hirochi Short time: 1:10.674

strop’s Trial Mountain time: 1:59 with a lot of extreme sideways

AirJordan – 2000 Smooth Notsomuch

The characteristic of the rear-engine car is subtle and muted in this rather stable machine. Balanced towards understeer, it takes quite a bit of provocation to unsettle and with relatively soft suspension the response is predictable and even. Apply more throttle and it straightens out promptly. The corner speed isn’t actually slow, but because it’s so easy to straighten out, it perpetually feels like it doesn’t want to corner any faster. Already easy to master around Trial Mountain, it’s probably going to be a bit of a yawn-fest on fast tracks, but on more technical downhill runs it might show more character.

Cost: 9988
Format: RR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 13.3
Fuel Economy: 6L/100km
Power: 162.7hp
Weight: 841.2kg
Power:weight ratio: 193.41hp:ton

strop’s Hirochi Short time: 1:08.373

strop’s Trial Mountain time: 1:56

1985 Polski Bomba Street

Holy hell the suspension is stiff. It has to be, because if it wasn’t the rear would pitch and send the car off line and turn into a wrecking ball, complete with pendulum effect. The big problem with all the RR entries is that even if they’re super light and can theoretically corner well, it takes extremely precise throttle and brake control to actually achieve that evenly. The only alternative is to set the power to traction ratio way higher, lengthen the wheelbase and then you’ll have a CTR Yellowbird, but that’s clearly not in the scope of this challenge. Since this is not a Yellowbird, driving it smoothly and maybe even a little cautiously yields the best result.

Cost: 8279
Format: RR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 2.8
Fuel Economy: 8.6L/100km
Power: 151.2hp
Weight: 615.3kg
Power:weight ratio: 245.7hp:ton

strop’s Hirochi Short time: 1:07.283

strop’s Trial Mountain time: 1:52

In a table, then:

and compared to my reference car:

Yeah okay my car’s not much of a reference when I pretty much made it an outlier, lol. I also tuned it to be quite firm so it’s more like a hot tune that’s barely streetable, but that’s what it took to even bring it up to parity as you can see.

strop · 24 February 2019 10:32

Stage 1 Analysis

As mentioned before, I planned to rank the cars on how they performed versus expectations using quick dirty linear relations between power, weight and power:weight to the track time. This is obviously a very abstract measure and so the information can only really be used to approximately measure a car’s standing in the ranks as opposed to any concrete measure of “how fast is my car”. It goes without saying that this is also only one of the ways in which to measure a car. So I’ll be including comments about specific cars to flesh out the interpretation.

Highlighted cars are mine, obviously.

The Tanaka Aventis packs the biggest bang for buck and should have immediately stood out even on initial visual inspection. There’s two reasons for this: 1) it’s FWD but has rear sway bars so stiff the tail points out and the nose points in at the slightest provocation, meaning maximal corner speeds provided you don’t bin it (which is easy enough to do if you’re committed to the FWD way of life) 2) it has 230 wide sports compound tyres, the most of all the official entries. Also it has some pretty expensive gear in it: keep in mind it’s a hatch and it does have a decent interior, but it has 2 seats, not 4.
By direct comparison, my Fore GTi also packs a punch, but funnily enough was just as fast around the track in 950kg 5 door guise as it was in this guise. I suspect it’s something to do with the effective traction remaining unchanged. This has actually changed my car building style to the point that I now match the tyre size with the weight and the power, something I wasn’t doing when I built the first Legatus.
The Rocinante appears to score poorly on this metric purely because it’s so light, which again brings to mind the idea of effective grip, particularly at lower speeds. I don’t think the overall cornering speed would have actually been affected if it was 100kg heavier.
The Jesta on the other hand doesn’t have super wide or low profile tyres. Aside from a geared diff it must run on magic.
The Sprinter HF has pretty wide tyres itself (225). At Ornate’s request I gave a clone a bit of a tune-up so that the engine power curve was workable and the front end didn’t roll around like a yacht in the middle of a hurricane and it actually gained 2 seconds, which means it had the potential to be ludicrous fast.
The absolute value of the “Delta” doesn’t really matter because the values are taken relative from the average and calibrated to the range, which means all the outliers are included. That said I like to think of the Kettenblitz as the benchmark here because it was the car that was tuned to be driven very exact so it’s kind of fitting.
The RR cars (including mine) struggled with the notable exception of the Smooth, as expected. Could I have driven them better? Not so sure about that.
The Stelvio, Iserim, Lynx, Pistero and BCT all are at the bottom of this ladder mostly due to tyre choices.
It’s impossible to comment on how much the year and therefore the level of tech had on these measures because the cars were all so distinctive.

Ornate · 24 February 2019 10:57

The lesson learned is that if you happen to travel back in time to around 1988, tell the Honda engineers to put a turbo 6-cycl engine in the Accord and release it as a Skyline competitor.

brunator · 24 February 2019 11:10

I think the developers have to look the price of the tyres. I don’t know any real life scenario where 2 compounds have 1k diference in value.

congrats to the best cars designers, and some lessons to learn

strop · 24 February 2019 11:14

to be honest I’ve never actually figured out exactly what qualifies as which compound in real life equivalents. A guide on that would be pretty helpful.

brunator · 24 February 2019 11:43

I think about it as this:
1hards, something like michelin energy or similar
2 meds, something like michelin primacy
3 sport, pilot sports.
between those 3 there is no more than 50 dollars of difference per tyre, about 200 max for the complete set.
the only ones that could fit the ingame difference are the race compound, which in real life can cost up to 300 or 400 dollars more per tyre

JANXOL · 24 February 2019 13:07

I am no expert on tyres, but my understanding is that michelin energy would still be considered medium compund, although a bit more budget than primacy.

brunator · 24 February 2019 14:01

even so, there is not a 200 dollars gap between the most cheap chinesse and the best michelin, bridgestone, dunlop…, I think the devs should take a look to that

koolkei · 24 February 2019 14:37

you could just edit your post you know?

Lordred · 24 February 2019 14:54

If you guys are looking at modern tire prices, you need to look at the difference between common sizes vs uncommon sizes. I’m sure many of you were using tires boarder lining 40/45 profiles in the 80’s-90’s which are both expensive and uncommon. If you stuck to 55-65 profiles the tires would have cost much less,

But I’m just assuming. But keep in mind the price for the tires in the game is more than just the tires, it is also including the cost of the wheel.
If you run Staggered wheel/tires if the stagger is enough, it also increases costs because you need different width wheels.

Using a modern example, the Mustang Shelby GT-350 sits on 305/30/19 tires, if you get the OE tires for it (Pilot Sports) they cost all of $1,754.84. However if you get something just ONE step down from those OE tires, it costs $800.00.

But I’m assuming others were using non era specific tire sizes/diameters.

AirJordan · 24 February 2019 20:01

Momentum is the key Actually I would expect that car like this comes alice only when you drive it like a mad man and turn it to eleven… at other times its just fun and friendly… But then again maybe some more front tyre would do it justice.

strop · 3 March 2019 09:14

Stage 1 Analysis– Correction

Apologies for this. On further inspection my line of best fit for the column “hirochi ratio delta” was shithouse and didn’t fit at all.

Here’s values derived from a superior a better line of fit. The colour matching should be better represented by numerical values and this does change the rankings slightly, though not by a huge amount.

This said it’s worth noting that while some cars appeared to move several places the numbers don’t lie: their relative performances compared to the other cars were actually really close and I’m not posting this with the purpose of differentiating entries, so much as conveying a relative impression.

So then an additional note:

the Scarab Nova is a very fast car, but scores nearer the bottom here because it’s big and heavy and there’s only so much that power does for you on Hirochi Short.

Stage 2 Analysis

Now I add the information from Trial Mountain. I expected that being a bit smoother and with two high speed sections but also with plenty of technical sections, cars with slightly sluggish or unpredictable handling wouldn’t be punished as hard, and those with more power (assuming effective traction) would gain a small bonus.

Lo and behold:

Power did indeed matter slightly more on this track
The Akuna Sprinter shoots up the ranks because its marshmallow handling doesn’t matter as much as the fact it has superior mid-corner grip
The Fuji Homologation machine with its non-existent ground clearance also moves up the ranks because cutting the kerbs doesn’t result in instant death, so I could cut better lines
The AWD cars generally improved slightly except for the Rocinante, because the Rocinante’s real party trick doesn’t reveal itself until closer to its top speed (hint: it’s ludicrous downforce)
I’m not certain why I couldn’t drive the Stelvio any faster. But I can say that it did have relatively narrow tyres for the power it was packing and it was old, so maybe it’s starting to feel a bit exposed. We’ll confirm this if it struggles on ATT
The usual suspects at the bottom haven’t budged due to their tricky handling or general lack of grip. This is hardly surprising at this stage

I’m going to be a little slow with the rest of the stages because I’m working 12 days straight, but will continue to chip away. I should have the 3rd Stage, Automation Test Track, done by the middle of the week.

gridghost · 3 March 2019 11:45

I guessed the Scarab would be midpack at best, as it is powerfunl, big and heavy… not as nimble and quick as the Armada, thats for sure but fitting with what i was trying to achieve

I’m actually quite pleased with it

strop · 9 March 2019 04:48

Sorry for the long delay. I had one of my “twelve days working week” and it makes me hate life for the last 5 of them. Now it’s back to the “regular” programming of showing the raw stage results.

Stage 3: TRACK DAY BRO

This is obviously the fastest stage of the test. Sector 1 is more technical with a big chicane and a left kink followed by the sharpest hairpin in the course. The braking zone on that is a challenge particularly for cars with finnicky suspension setups as the weight transfer may not be complete before braking starts and this throws many a car off. Otherwise, with very long straights, the scariest part of the course is the Bavarian bend, with a long cresting braking zone and a blind left kink. Finding the right braking point without losing control can be a fine balance and with another acceleration zone after that can make up to half a second difference alone.

I fully expect that there will be a much stronger skew towards the powerful cars here, so expect the strongest showing from the big fat beefy AWD crowd here.

N.B. this is also the stage where it’s possible to compare how fast one is compared to the Automation simulation, which is something Killrob did in his Great Engineer Terrible Driver series. These are done from standing starts, so the Automation laps listed here are also standing starts. I take more aggressive lines than the simulation and it is also terrible at launching (because every car needs launching differently), so on average I perform 1.5-2% faster than the sim provided that the two versions behave similarly. But they often don’t because of different drag calculations and downforce calculations, which is why I specified a certain size of wing to be placed on the back. For the most part this seems to have worked okay, but the GETD value is difficult to interpret without a lot of context. Let’s just say outliers tend to speak for themselves, and if I go below 0.98 it means the car hit a sweet spot of handling, and if it goes above 0.985 it was a bit tricky or unbalanced. My prediction is that it’ll be on average lower for FF and AWD cars, and higher for FR and RR cars. MR cars, well, that depends.

FR

Once again not the fastest group, either through shooting oneself in the foot (when it comes to plain track times alone, of course), or emphasising lightness over outright power. Fair enough. From this alone I have concluded for parity purposes if/when I run a proper challenge like this I’ll need to stipulate more strict rules about tyre choices and thre widths etc.

JANXOL – 1982 Cyanide Motors 1982 Terrier - S1

What passed as speed actually became outright twitchiness which actually caused me to struggle to drive it flat out on this circuit. That’s not surprising: the temptation to overdrive was strong given that previously where this car lacked in power it made up for in the sharpness. But here where grip and speed is everything, it just felt like it lacked both, even in the corner speeds. It was difficult to dial in the exact amount of throttle and lock needed to get the most out of each sweeping corner and the car was always threatening to get sideways which wouldn’t have been optimal. Best to stick to the tight twisty stuff.

Cost: 9984
Format: FR
Seats: 2+2
Comfort: 2.9
Fuel Economy: 12.9L/100km
Power: 150.2hp
Weight: 907.8kg
Power:weight ratio: 165.45hp:ton

ATT time (Automation): 2:29.52

strop’s ATT time: 2:27.94

GETD ratio: 0.989

stm316 – 1985 G&W Stamford 85

Easygoing driving continues here. Stm worried that maybe it was boring. It’s not that boring. I say not that boring because on a track like this with lots of straights obviously there is the sensation of waiting for the car to get up to speed, plus the fact it just seems to easy to control accentuates the sense that you can get more out of the car than the car can get out of itself.

Cost: 10480
Format: FR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 15.4
Fuel Economy: 13.2L/100km
Power: 154.8hp
Weight: 1112.5kg
Power:weight ratio: 139.15hp:ton

ATT time (Automation): 2:32.31

strop’s ATT time: 2:28.983

GETD ratio: 0.978

NiuYorqCiti – 1989 Ponni Pistero - RS

Having said all there is to be said about this car I’m going to keep it short and blunt: I take it back. This can’t can’t even drift around anything except hairpins LMAO.

Cost: 10173
Format: FR
Seats: 2+2
Comfort: 7
Fuel Economy: 10L/100km
Power: 225.9hp
Weight: 995.4kg
Power:weight ratio: 226.94hp:ton

ATT time (Automation): 2:25.97

strop’s ATT time: 2:26.794

GETD ratio: 1.008

SideswipeBL – 1992 Toreer Sommet 250S

It’s heavier than it looks and that gets me every time. Even with ABS I stomp on the brakes a bit late and then think “oh these aren’t over savage aye” before plunging deep into the corner. This aside, the weight doesn’t feel all bad. It is surefooted and planted. A little care needs to be taken with the throttle coming out of corners in second, but it is otherwise actually a very forgiving handler on a smooth track. This car is not exactly going to light up the timesheets on a faster track, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t fun.

Cost: 8629
Format: FR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 5.6
Fuel Economy: 10L/100km
Power: 163.8hp
Weight: 1089.2kg
Power:weight ratio: 150.39hp:ton

ATT time (Automation): 2:29.33

strop’s ATT time: 2:27.086

GETD ratio: 0.985

racer126 – 1994 Geschenk Gato

It may not have a super brisk response but judging long corners in this car is a breeze. The acceleration in 4th and 5th is more like a wheeze because of the aforementioned super short low gears, which just goes to show where the strength of this car really lies. Not to say that the drive around a good track is unpleasant: the level of control well matches the level of power.

Cost: 9928
Format: FR
Seats: 2+3
Comfort: 4
Fuel Economy: 9.5L/100km
Power: 180.5hp
Weight: 1103.7kg
Power:weight ratio: 163.54hp:ton

ATT time (Automation): 2:28.56

strop’s ATT time: 2:25.81

GETD ratio: 0.981

Jaimz – 1995 FM Cerberus Track

I think I was too tempted to overdrive this car at times. After a while I noticed that I was actually pushing some pretty heavy understeer because I assumed the wheels wouldn’t scrub, but perhaps that was the effect of the length of the corners more than anything else. The truth is this car has more lightness than it has power, but it also has a lot of tightness which is what gives it better than average road holding and therefore a decent track performance. That said I think in this case that higher grip to lightness ratio causes Beam to wig out a bit because the body shook mightily under hard braking.

Cost: 9413
Format: FR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 5.3
Fuel Economy: 10.8L/100km
Power: 171.5hp
Weight: 977kg
Power:weight ratio: 175.54hp:ton

ATT time (Automation): 2:24.66

strop’s ATT time: 2:22.822

GETD ratio: 0.987

JohnWaldock – 1995 JHW Lynx S5

A pattern now emerges: the less grip the car has relative to power, the higher the GETD ratio goes. I was just able to squeak this in under the ratio with a lot of care and very accurate cornering. Once again it has all the balance and poise that belongs to something faster, so driving this thing hard is a bit of a ballet in slow motion (and trying to do ballet in slow motion is freaking hard).

Cost: 9989
Format: FR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 16.2
Fuel Economy: 8.2L/100km
Power: 186hp
Weight: 976kg
Power:weight ratio: 190.57hp:ton on medium grade tyres, this is going to be “fun”

ATT time (Automation): 2:26

strop’s ATT time: 2:25.561

GETD ratio: 0.997

yurimacs – 1997 Bradford Vector R

On a slower track one can appreciate the handling characteristic. On a bigger faster track like this one the Vector R feels exposed. That lack of grip translates to a flighty rear end and the heavy front end feels a bit dull. I wanted desperately to push it a bit harder and frequently found the limits more often than I planned to. The big advantage of this car is that few are more stable under braking… though that only is as long as the pads haven’t melted yet, which they certainly did.

Cost: 9894
Format: FR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 0.7
Fuel Economy: 8.7L/100km
Power: 195.2hp
Weight: 1072.6kg
Power:weight ratio: 181.99hp:ton

ATT time (Automation): 2:24.13

strop’s ATT time: 2:23.153

GETD ratio: 0.993

Mad_Cat – 1998 Petrov Ferro Coupe

It’s not actually a BAD car to drive. It’s just slow! And uneconomical.

Cost: 8419
Format: FR
Seats: 4
Comfort: 16
Fuel Economy: 10.6L/100km
Power: 150.7hp
Weight: 1116.5kg
Power:weight ratio: 134.98hp:ton

ATT time (Automation): 2:34.94

strop’s ATT time: 2:33.226

GETD ratio: 0.989

MAX_POWER – 1998 Kettenblitz 950QD

The thing that’s really starting to bother me about this car is that on any degree of turning, the inside wheel just wants to spin and spin and spin. The handling is as sharp as anything and I feel a certain eagerness to slingshot out of the corner and I literally can’t do it. I don’t know if it’s a Beam conversion issue with cars that have handling right on the adhesion limits or what, but it’s more of what I mentioned earlier. And that is why, despite this being a perfectly good handler with heaps of grip, I can’t beat the ATT time given by Automation.

Cost: 9628
Format: FR
Seats: 2+2
Comfort: 5.7
Fuel Economy: 6.7L/100km
Power: 161.9hp
Weight: 973kg
Power:weight ratio: 166.39hp:ton

ATT time (Automation): 2:24.46

strop’s ATT time: 2:24.909

GETD ratio: 1.003

Compared to my reference car:

1995 Matteo Miglia Excelsior Rosso Corsa

The slowest of my reference cars wasn’t at all difficult to drive here, so much as it was easy to find the limits and stay there because the limits were plenty apparent due to its relative weight. The temptation to strip this thing down and boost the engine to 300hp was so strong that I decided that this car needed a Competizione trim which was exactly that. Now that is a fast car.

Cost: 10758
Format: FR
Seats: 4
Comfort: 15.5
Fuel Economy: 10.3L/100km
Power: 202.1hp
Weight: 1194.7kg
Power:weight ratio: 169.2hp:ton

ATT time (Automation): 2:23.7

strop’s ATT time: 2:21.335

GETD ratio: 0.984

In a table, then:

The GETD ratios actually do an okay job of reflecting the comments. I always said the Stamford was nice to drive, and I also said the Pistero had a combination of factors that made it next to impossible to drive quickly. The biggest reveal here would be the Kettenblitz: it feels like a quick car but I simply couldn’t get the traction to hook up as commented on in Hirochi. The problem seemed worse than with other similar cars so I wonder is that because the tyres hit the traction limit too soon and since it has an open diff the inside wheel just starts spinning, or is it more than that? There’s something to be said about handling graphs which are aligned all the way up the sporty end, and feeling like there’s very little “give”, but I haven’t fully worked it out yet.

strop · 13 March 2019 09:11

FF

The main disadvantage with FF cars is that there’s only so much power to weight you can really put into them before all you get back is torque steer. Modern times has done much to mitigate this and that’s why you now have 308hp powering about 1.4 tons (including driver) whereas in the 90s even 200hp for 1.2 tons would have been considered absolute madness. Consequentially most of these cars did not have much power and therefore also were expected to be on the slowish side of things.

Mikonp7 – 1986 Haapala CupSport Streetlegal

Drama free and easy. It doesn’t exactly light up the top end and struggled to hit 190km/h at the Daffy Flyer but it really does well in the chicane and the slightly technical aspects. This is a car that revels in smooth undulating corners with a bit of trickiness more so than the open road, as it’s clearly most satisfying around the 70-130km/h mark. This said the Automation calculations probably got it a bit wrong considering just how much faster I could take everything: possibly the left foot brake technique gives it better cornering speed. The traction isn’t infinite, but it feels plentiful.

Cost: 10187
Format: FF
Seats: 2
Comfort: 7.1
Fuel Economy: 13.8L/100km
Power: 173.1hp
Weight: 906.6kg
Power:weight ratio: 190.93hp:ton

ATT time (Automation): 2:26.03

strop’s ATT time: 2:20.993

GETD ratio: 0.966

Ornate – 1991 Akuna Sprinter HF

As I roiled my way to seasickness lurching this thing around the track I came to a sudden realisation, halfway through lap 2 with the smoke pouring off my brakes and the stopping distances starting to balloon out. This could have gone a lot worse. Maybe it was the sheer amount of flak I’ve been already volleying at the car for all its known deficiencies, all of which were abundantly on display here. But hey, at least it hits 200. At least it has good corner speeds. It just needs a new front swaybar and swapped internals and a proper redline and a new gearbox and it’ll probably be quite a good contender.

Cost: 9448
Format: FF
Seats: 4
Comfort: 16.6
Fuel Economy: 5.7L/100km
Power: 182.4hp
Weight: 1001.4kg
Power:weight ratio: 182.14hp:ton

ATT time (Automation): 2:23.8

strop’s ATT time: 2:21.667

GETD ratio: 0.985

Aaron.W – 1992 Tanaka Aventis (4th Gen) - 2.0 TR (3DR)

The main weaknesses of this car is laid bare in a course that doesn’t often require fast direction changes, only big grip and big power. Being better than average but left lacking in the power stakes, the Tanaka couldn’t capitalise and thus slides a touch down in the rankings, though its nimbleness aided it in a couple of spots to leapfrog some places. It was also here that the big long high speed braking zones exposed a hidden weakness: the front brakes were dead by the end of lap 2 with at least a 25% increase in stopping distance. That’s not a great look for such an expensive, specialty bit of kit.

Cost: 11743
Format: FF
Seats: 2
Comfort: 4.2
Fuel Economy: 9L/100km
Power: 167.1hp
Weight: 985.4kg
Power:weight ratio: 169.58hp:ton

ATT time (Automation): 2:25.2

strop’s ATT time: 2:21.131

GETD ratio: 0.972

conan – 1992 Mitsushita Jesta Baleno TCS

I mentioned before that this came from the school of thick rear swaybar. The same holds here but there’s a crucial difference between this and the car that came before it: the rear sway bar here is only about as stiff as the Tanaka’s front sway bar. That means that while it’s a firm ride with plenty of response there’s still a bit of leeway and give so that the tyres don’t start bouncing and the car goes skittish. Which in turn makes the difference between a car leaning nicely into the turns at a lively rhythm to feeling like it wants to cut loose despite being driven by the front wheels. And that, I reckon, makes the nearly 1% difference in the GETD ratio, which isn’t insignificant. The Mitsushita doesn’t exactly set the dyno alight (maybe it should get a nice big snail on the block) but it has the same great handling and old school analog charm as it showed on the previous courses, meaning that thus far, it’s doing well all around.

Cost: 9672
Format: FF
Seats: 4
Comfort: 7.7
Fuel Economy: 8.8L/100km
Power: 175.3hp
Weight: 959.6kg
Power:weight ratio: 182.68hp:ton

ATT time (Automation): 2:23.62

strop’s ATT time: 2:18.382

GETD ratio: 0.964

Xepy – 1992 Kuma SU Si Coupe (2+2)

In the previous stage I wondered why this car seemed to demand so much “precision” in its inputs. Having now taken it on a track which is faster with gentler curves, I know the answer: it is weighty. Not just that it weighs a comparatively porky (for a FWD) 1140kg, but also because it just feels that weight. The ride isn’t roly-poly like others, and there appears to be plenty of mid-corner grip. But exceeding those limits really does cause the car to overshoot or plow straight on ahead because of the weight. Strangely enough then hitting the brakes really hard causes the front end to shudder and shake which I thought was a problem when the tyre traction exceeded the beam tension because the front end was too light. I’m not sure that’s the case here, and for purposes of assessment I’ll ignore that.

Cost: 10173
Format: FF
Seats: 4
Comfort: 7.1
Fuel Economy: 11.3L/100km
Power: 209.5hp
Weight: 1138.1kg
Power:weight ratio: 184.08hp:ton

ATT time (Automation): 2:25.16

strop’s ATT time: 2:23.75

GETD ratio: 0.990

Centurion_23 – 1994 Jade-Gemin GLX

If I ignore the fact this thing runs about 20 profile higher tyres than the rest of the field, it’s actually set up for some decent fun. But I can’t ignore the fact it seems to lack a certain “VTEC just kicked in yo”. Especially given the gearing is a bit longer (that could just be the altered drag calculations in Beam, of course). It kind of makes me wish I had nitrous in this thing, but then I’d probably still get spanked as hard as Jesse got spanked by Tran, so eh.

Cost: 8537
Format: FF
Seats: 4
Comfort: 9.5
Fuel Economy: 7.8L/100km
Power: 144.2hp
Weight: 945.2kg
Power:weight ratio: 152.56hp:ton

ATT time (Automation): 2:27.73

strop’s ATT time: 2:26.846

GETD ratio: 0.994

Traviq_125 – 1994 Iserim Sol

Let me put it this way, if I put my Civic in a microwave oven and mildly warmed it I might get something like this. It certainly isn’t about to set the track ablaze. Actually it’s kind of out of place here considering a lack of all around everything in general, which really goes to show: if you want to track day bro something, you kind of need a fair bit of money. Well, on as speedy a track as the ATT is anyway. The brakes melted after 2 laps so I was quite relieved to call it a day and see how it fared on slower courses.

Cost: 7717
Format: FF
Seats: 4
Comfort: 5.1
Fuel Economy: 8.3L/100km
Power: 120.3hp
Weight: 887.5kg
Power:weight ratio: 135.55hp:ton

ATT time (Automation): 2:35.74

strop’s ATT time: 2:30.869

GETD ratio: 0.969

Madrias – 2000 Ishu Astrion 700T

I expected this to be much less at home here than on Trial Mountain. In a sense that was correct: the pillowy front end rolled around almost to the point of pulling the car out of line and the turbo wheezed valiantly to a Vmax of 178km/h along the Daffy Flyer. But what surprised me was that it was the challenge of finding the limit of this rather forgiving car that kept me entertained and whittling down the time for 4 laps (down to a 2:26.1 even). There was time to think about how it cornered and how it responded and what the right grip point and just how much left foot brake pressure to apply. I highly doubt this would make a repeat appearance at a track as fast as this but a review of the figures did inform me that actually, in terms of absolute grip this car was able to punch a bit above its weight in terms of cornering ability. It just didn’t feel like it could.

Cost: 10130
Format: FF
Seats: 4
Comfort: 10.9
Fuel Economy: 6.9L/100km
Power: 114.9hp
Weight: 860kg
Power:weight ratio: 133.6hp:ton

ATT time (Automation): 2:33.18

strop’s ATT time: 2:30.159

GETD ratio: 0.980

Compared to my reference car:

1991 Armada Motors Fore Gen.II Eagle GTi

Cost: 9352
Format: FF
Seats: 4
Comfort: 6.2
Fuel Economy: 7.5L/100km
Power: 182.1hp
Weight: 908.6kg
Power:weight ratio: 200.4hp:ton

ATT time (Automation): 2:22.25

strop’s ATT time: 2:16.742 holy shit

GETD ratio: 0.961

In a table, then:

None of the cars here suffered from “too much power”. What I’ve since learnt is that if a car’s designed to be chucked silly then it’s actually wiser not to try and make the sharpest possible handling line because this also means that when it does lose traction it lets go instantly as there’s no leeway for scrub or weight transfer, and that’s not necessarily a desirable trait for an FF car. This is a half-baked thought and may be refined later (in fact I may have to do another test to confirm).

JANXOL · 13 March 2019 14:00

I have accepted my car will do worse on ATT because it lacks power, but the twitchiness concerns me. It didn’t really show in my testing, so my question would be when and how bad is it, and how can I make it better?

Madrias · 13 March 2019 14:06

I’m pleased that the Ishu Astrion managed to at least be entertaining, even if it’s not fast.

strop · 16 March 2019 13:17

Yeah this is a very valid question and I didn’t expect it either. All I can think of is see what happens if your car wasn’t right on the edge of the handling graph by softening it a bit or reducing the front negative camber. I’m not sure this will solve the problem though.

Alternatively if you want to keep that level of sharpness and suffer less from one-wheel peel… just slap on a LSD haha.

AWD

The big boys enter the fray. Big power, big grip, lots of acceleration. These will definitely be the fastest at today’s track session, being finally allowed to fully let loose for once before being cooped up again by the narrow twisties.

GassTiresandOil – 1988 Armor Cricket GT4

If not for the annoyingly late spool on the turbo this would be a winner. It’s already very quick thanks to an excellent turn-in at any speed, whether braking, neutral or accelerating. It’s virtually unflappable and controllable at once without sacrificing responsiveness and without that annoying AWD habit of straightening out under throttle.

Cost: 10357
Format: AWD
Seats: 4
Comfort: 7.4
Fuel Economy: 11L/100km
Power: 233.5hp
Weight: 1078.4kg
Power:weight ratio: 216.52hp:ton

ATT time (Automation): 2:21.5

strop’s ATT time: 2:16.172

GETD ratio: 0.962

gridghost – 1995 Scarab Nova GT-X26

This is a very very stable car, truly like a lighter R33GT. It accelerates sharply, it’s extremely stable and precise and it has fantastic anchors. But it does have a tendency to understeer due to its front heavy characteristic. This is a car to be driven straight, no additives, no chaser. The interesting part is again the manual locking diff. Whether one uses them actually depends on the driving style and the characteristics of the track: if the track has a lot of technical corners requiring modulation within a tightening corner it’s best to keep them off. But Automation isn’t like that, as there’s a lot of corners with static velocity where one is just waiting for the apex. In these situations the locked diff proved superior.

Cost: 11702
Format: AWD
Seats: 4
Comfort: 1.5
Fuel Economy: 10.4L/100km
Power: 313.5hp
Weight: 1284.8kg
Power:weight ratio: 244.01hp:ton

ATT time (Automation): 2:18.26

strop’s ATT time: 2:14.361

GETD ratio: 0.972

NeO – 1995 Kitanishi Fleuris SP2000

Satisfying and drama free, and since it’s very predictable, you could probably copy-paste the comment I made when driving it around Trial Mountain. There’s no surprises here: it’s very fast but it’s not quite as fast as the ~~Skyline~~ Nova simply because it’s down 40hp.

Cost: 11993
Format: AWD
Seats: 2+2
Comfort: 7.1
Fuel Economy: 9L/100km
Power: 176.2hp
Weight: 1265.9kg
Power:weight ratio: 218.18hp:ton

ATT time (Automation): 2:20.88

strop’s ATT time: 2:16.357

GETD ratio: 0.968

brunator – 1999 BCT T1001S 525TS

I really wouldn’t have minded going over 10k if for the sake of better tyres. As it was this thing was more of a street sweeper than a sports car, by which I mean there was barely any time the car wasn’t scrubbing rubber onto the tarmac. This is an identical complaint to the previous, really. On the plus side there was no brake fade, so perhaps with a better set of tyres and a bit of a suspension retune this thing could prove to be a real weapon. Actually no, before that I’d also retune the power curve because the power kept dropping way too far off every time I changed up and the turbo lag was also getting a bit ridiculous. Well let’s just say aside from the ridiculous power there wasn’t much going for it because it was so hard to use that power. My out lap was marked mainly by braking way too late and understeering deep into the corner, hence the shameful >1 GETD ratio. If I had another go I’d probably get it right… but I’m not inclined to try.

Cost: 10000
Format: AWD
Seats: 4
Comfort: 2.7
Fuel Economy: 9.7L/100km
Power: 300.4hp
Weight: 1060.2kg
Power:weight ratio: 283.34hp:ton

ATT time (Automation): 2:23.21

strop’s ATT time: 2:24.176

GETD ratio: 1.007

ELBruno – 2000 Marquez CDD SWS 270i6

A quite impressive offering that makes the most of its higher power at the expense of the higher weight. The front actually did start to pitch and roll excessively causing a bit of imprecision in corner exits, which probably cost me a bit of time in the tighter segments. But it’s still right up there with the quickest of the lot, not least because it breaks 200km/h though I do note at that point its blocky aerodynamics hit hard. There’s very little separating it from the ~~Lancer~~ Kitanshi except that it’s looser.

Cost: 10000
Format: AWD
Seats: 4
Comfort: 6.3
Fuel Economy: 11.2L/100km
Power: 271.6hp
Weight: 1289.9kg
Power:weight ratio: 210.56hp:ton

ATT time (Automation): 2:18.76

strop’s ATT time: 2:16.088

GETD ratio: 0.981

Obfuscious – 2000 Rocinante

Holy hell that big wing does a grand job. It’s not located all the way over the rear and so it actually exerts effect on all four wheels and keeps things planted, meaning that it can take the Bavarian bend at much higher speeds. The spiffin power to weight ratio makes short work coming out of the tight corners. This well more than offsets what was lost due to the low top speed. So it’s official: my prediction about it losing out on this track was wrong. On an even faster track however…

Cost: 9998
Format: AWD
Seats: 2
Comfort: 0.8
Fuel Economy: 13.2L/100km
Power: 209.8hp
Weight: 815.6kg
Power:weight ratio: 257.23hp:ton

ATT time (Automation): 2:20.56

strop’s ATT time: 2:15.144

GETD ratio: 0.961

As you may recall I didn’t make an AWD car so here’s the table:

As predicted, invariably powerful and fast. I will tell you now that it was possible to go even harder with the 2WD cars and with the extra money use a few tricks to equal the blistering time of the Scarab Nova. But nobody decided to go that route because that would have meant making something rather extreme, and at this level, if one is making an AWD car, either you’re going offroad, or you’re going hard.

strop · 20 March 2019 12:43

You’ve probably noticed I’ve slowed down significantly. This is because a) work is hell lately b) I’m rapidly running out of buffer for tested cars and it’s going to slow down to a crawl, but I have to absolutely finish the test drives before the 8th of April because I’ll be away for 3 weeks!

MR

It’s hard to comment on this lot because it’s such a mixed bag. But suffice to say that with power ruling the day I expected lap times to largely correlate with that. I also expected that the GETD ratio would correlate with just how “track tuned” the suspension was, since there was very little to unsettle the low-riders…

PugeHenis – 1983 Stelvio O-56

I remember now why this car seemed a bit slower than the numbers suggested. Almost none of the power is accessible until right at the top and the the moment you shift up the power drops off a cliff. While the turn in is very precise and rapid at lower speeds it actually starts struggling on faster courses because at high speeds it’s not stable under braking! This was clearly tuned for Hirochi Short, but trying to shed speed on the long straights and the sweeping curves of the ATT was like trying to run on ice: more often than not I’d end up in a massive tank-slapper and wrapped around a tyre wall. These weren’t things that were so obvious under 130km/h.

Cost: 11117
Format: MR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 0.2
Fuel Economy: 12.6L/100km
Power: 230hp
Weight: 1167.4kg
Power:weight ratio: 197.02hp:ton

ATT time (Automation): 2:28.52

strop’s ATT time: 2:26.537

strop’s GETD ratio: 0.987

Lava_Cake – 1987 TX7 B6

I don’t have much to add compared to how this drove on Trial Mountain. But I did discover something odd that shouldn’t be happening which may unfairly affect this car in future tests: the moment I hit any bumps, a beam in the car dislodges and causes the beams to scrape against the ground, which then affects the handling of the car under braking. I’ve included the picture below to demonstrate what I mean. This means there’s an additional thing to watch out for when stamping fixtures onto cars and I’ll just have to conduct the appropriate tests so this doesn’t keep happening.

Cost: 10100
Format: MR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 15.9 sew fanceh
Fuel Economy: 11.9L/100km
Power: 145.8hp
Weight: 1063.2kg
Power:weight ratio: 137.13hp:ton

ATT time (Automation): 2:31.21

strop’s ATT time: 2:28.783

strop’s GETD ratio: 0.984

DoctorNarfy – 1991 Shromet Interval GTS

This is SO NICE. It tolerates a fair bit of bad behaviour (especially for a RWD car) but it rewards good driving in spades. There was a fair bit of rattle in the body when going over kerbs and bumps which reminded me of its extreme low ground clearance, but when it was smooth it was real smooth. This would be a proper favourite if not for the brakes melting halfway through lap one, which actually started hurting the time before I even finished the standing lap.

Cost: 11368
Format: MR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 10.1
Fuel Economy: 12.5L/100km
Power: 251.6hp
Weight: 1175.7kg
Power:weight ratio: 214hp:ton

ATT time (Automation): 2:19.83

strop’s ATT time: 2:16.665 with smoke pouring out of the brakes too!

strop’s GETD ratio: 0.977

CC9020 – 1992 Fuji RMS GTR Homologation

The more I drive this the more I like it. Sharp, but poised. There’s definitely a right and a wrong with this car and the way it gives feedback in the play of the body is very informative. I thought it might struggle with relatively less power here and in a sense it didn’t quite go as fast but with handling as satisfying as this I don’t care. Actually I do care a bit. If it had say another 30-40hp it’d be properly nice. But as it is I accidentally dipped a wheel onto the grass and threw a tank slapper, but with plenty of opposite lock and even more gas I was able to catch it and mid-engine doriftu around the entire bend. That’s not normal, and just speaks of how well balanced this car is. It remains to be seen how it goes on the bumpier roads, but here, it’s like… like… a mid-engined GT-86. I do need to mention though, if the brake fade was a bit of an issue in Trial Mountain, it was a HUGE issue here. Needs an upgrade.

Cost: 9817
Format: MR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 2.6
Fuel Economy: 8.8L/100km
Power: 185.4hp
Weight: 1047.7kg
Power:weight ratio: 176.96hp:ton

ATT time (Automation): 2:23.63

strop’s ATT time: 2:19.992

strop’s GETD ratio: 0.975

And compared to my reference car:

1983 Matteo Miglia Legatus

The whole “the front end shakes under heavy braking” ruins what is otherwise a really nice run even at higher speeds and is really starting to get me down. I should take a look at what the deal with that is but in this case I suspect it’s “the front end is too light for the traction”.

Cost: 9231
Format: MR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 4.2
Fuel Economy: 13.1L/100km
Power: 197.3hp
Weight: 884.6kg
Power:weight ratio: 223hp:ton

ATT time (Automation): 2:20.73

strop’s ATT time: 2:16.9

strop’s GETD ratio: 0.973

In a table, then:

By this point it appears obvious that each of these cars have great potential but that potential needs a bit of unlocking. The Stelvio needs a bit of an engine retune and a rethink of the balance at high speeds. The TX7 needs a bit of a boost and also for the sway bars to be evened out (which has already been tested). Both the Shromet and the Fuji handled fantastically in slightly different ways but were stymied by melty brakes. It’s hard picking a clear favourite out of this bunch but perhaps the last two tests which are more exacting might help…

strop · 24 March 2019 11:54

Shit I’m getting way too many likes for my posting rate which is slowing to a crawl. Fear not, I’m nearly done with yet another 12 day week from hell and will be able to actually finish driving the Mt Glorious and Italy Hillclimb stages within the next fortnight!

RR

Given the modular nature of the Automation track (with the exception of the devilishly difficult Bavarian Bend), I figured maybe the weaknesses of the RR car would be slightly masked. I was not exactly correct. But I was also not entirely incorrect.

Lordred – 1981 Pulsar Defiant

The cursed softbody physics thing strikes again! Surprisingly facile though out of place on this track, the Pulsar was only undone by the excessive front body rumble that literally dragged it off the road under heavy braking. This is not so much an issue with the car as it is a problem when traction and friction causes the force to exceed the tension of certain beams and can cause a vehicle to literally shake itself to bits. I suspect if not for this I could have scored an even better GETD ratio as the ability to brake late and go around corners surprisingly fast was very handy in the first sector.

Cost: 9518
Format: RR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 2.6
Fuel Economy: 13.9L/100km
Power: 142.6hp
Weight: 656kg
Power:weight ratio: 217.38hp:ton

ATT time (Automation): 2:25.11

strop’s ATT time: 2:23.227

GETD ratio: 0.987

Dorifto_Dorito – 1987 Nohda Strato (82) Super Strato Turbo (87)

Maybe I was just relieved that I wouldn’t have to take a lot of really sudden corners. This car hates tight corners. Well, it also happens to hate big long high speed corners even more LMAO. It’s all about the balance really but like I may have said before, the front doesn’t feel like it has enough traction and the rear end just likes to swing out. I’ve since worked out that it’s exacerbated in this car because the rear track width is even wider because of that ultra-cool looking bodykit. Well, it works on longer wheelbase cars but here having a wider track than the wheelbase is just asking for trouble.

Cost: 9461
Format: RR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 11.4
Fuel Economy: 12L/100km
Power: 163.9hp
Weight: 763.5kg
Power:weight ratio: 214.67hp:ton

ATT time (Automation): 2:44.96

strop’s ATT time: 2:44.017

GETD ratio: 0.993

AirJordan – 2000 Smooth Notsomuch

It looks soft and the handling has some give in it, but the performance is always just a little quicker than expected. Could be to do with its lightness. While not quite as home with the point and shoot style of the ATT as on the gently undulating curves of Trial Mountain, particularly the Bavarian Bend, it still carries itself with aplomb.

Cost: 9988
Format: RR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 13.3
Fuel Economy: 6L/100km
Power: 162.7hp
Weight: 841.2kg
Power:weight ratio: 193.41hp:ton

ATT time (Automation): 2:21.8

strop’s ATT time: 2:19.565

GETD ratio: 0.984

Compared with my reference car:

1985 Polski Bomba Street

Thanks to the super track tune suspension, the Bomba didn’t have any of the issues that the other entries that used this body faced. But it did hit an aerodynamic wall, and hard. This is just not the kind of car you take on this kind of track. Next stage please!

Cost: 8279
Format: RR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 2.8
Fuel Economy: 8.6L/100km
Power: 151.2hp
Weight: 615.3kg
Power:weight ratio: 245.7hp:ton

ATT time (Automation): 2:21.16

strop’s ATT time: 2:18.353

GETD ratio: 0.98

In a table, then:

Finally! That’s this stage done (and also the one that took the longest, because why did I commit to five consecutive laps around the track for every car? That amounted to nearly 6 hours of driving alone…) I’ll put up the list of every entry, ordered by GETD ratio just for kicks.

I think given how loosely one should be interpreting the GETD this is not all that helpful. There’s many reasons that a car is made harder to drive but it all comes down to how badly the traction, speed of weight transfer and power is matched up. All the cars up the top had really well balanced attributes even if they were of vastly different capabilities. The cars down the bottom tended to have simply not enough traction for whatever they were packing, and of course, the rear-engined cars which were a law unto themselves.

Next up I’ll post the “Delta values” of this stage, which is really a way for me to stall for time while I build up my buffer driving all the cars down one hill and up another