…uh guys?
I think I’ve just shaved off a second and a half with a more track-specific setup. 
Wow ElSaico, I bow to the king of FF hot hatches on this track! [size=85]Unless I really put my head down and take my own hot hatch apart, but I just don’t know if I have that in me as my hatch is a 2014 so I’m super impressed![/size]
Since Dragawn is getting more serious, I suppose I better do the same, and release an upgraded version of the Mesos, now in AWD! Interestingly enough it has exactly the same engine, only now it has fully equipped advanced FIA approved racing safety in case you want to enter the car in some events. The added weight also helps the car comply with the power:weight ratio of 310bhp/tonne.
Contrary to expectation (and just like what happened with the Nightfury TDS), I was happily able to find a superior suspension alternative to removing the front sway bar. It now has a very sporty firm suspension setup that gives it sharper responsiveness on the road without sacrificing grip.
And it goes faster down the pass, putting in a time of 4:49.11.
All this said, this is a car that goes a fair way to ekeing out the extra few fractions. In a comparison with Dragawn’s car, it’d be a fair bit harder on your hip pocket for arguably only a little difference, or perhaps the little extra that counts the most… which reflects the differences in our company approaches. Furthermore I don’t expect to stay ahead for very long at all, as the shootout continues!
I made a crazy 350BHP thing weighing 600something kilos for the Unlimited Class (Yes, i used the super tiny 70’s one), managed 2.4s 0-100, 1.47g and 230kph top speed, runs in around 275s if i remember correctly, any tips for making a decent track setup? 
Haha I was going to so that next! I’ll go and make one soon so your model won’t be lonely next to my attempt at world domination.
A good track setup actually balances the load on your front and back wheels against the turn in of the car (softer front sway bars and stiffer rear sway bars tend towards oversteer), such that the wheels maintain contact with the ground. Stiffer dampers and springs will improve responsiveness but may make the ride twitchier and obviously more prone to skittering over bumps (may not affect simulation) but also reduces overall grip if too extreme (will affect simulation!) Negative camber on the front also improves turn in but does happen much off the track because it increases tyre wear, and must be balanced by camber at the rear. Lower ride height improves stability and increases downforce but reduces space for wheel travel.
That’s just the suspension! Most of that info can be found on the crash course thread…
…I have also learnt how to lighten the car further! It’s to do with reducing the torque, so next up is playing with that and emulating the lovely flat torque curve dragawn has in his engine…
IIRC the weight of the transmission components scale with the torque, so less torque = lighter gearbox/diff/awd stuff.
In a 600 hp supercharged hotrod you can use a light automatic gearbox (30-40 kg), in a turbo diesel pickup (250-300 hp) with a towing rating ower 7 metric tons, the auto gearbox might weigh 100+ kg.
So the transmission mass should also scale with the size/max weight of the vehicle. Maybe something for the developers to think about.
Der Bayer actually just explained this in another thread! The transmission in Automation scales for torque and nothing else. I’m not sure that it’d be that relevant for this simulation to scale transmission to size, since the size differential between models isn’t all that huge.
(Post edited: I can’t read apparently LOL)
Ugh, I’ve only been able to get 0.5 seconds off, seems like my car can no longer fight the torque abomination 
I’ve managed to get the tameness penalty down to 4.1% even, and 5% for a production version of the engine, but they weren’t any faster due to somehow being 0.2s slower for 0-100.
I’ve been working on a 1.9L and a 2.4L with a…quite odd torque curve though
This is the 2.4L:
Whilst weird, it achieves a tameness penalty of just 11%, which I’m quite satisfied with considering it spools 1.6 bar of boost
Probably not gonna find its way into this competition, but I’ll be keeping these around for when mid-engine placement finally comes out 
Edit: whoops, I forgot, the mtbf with proper cooling is 67k
And here I was thinking that performance could be improved if I evened out the torque curve I could get a slightly lighter car with a more progressive power band and maybe that might improve overall performance. But I see you knew well where this was going dragawn 
Nonetheless I’ll give it a shot and see if we can come up with the best of both worlds!
Here’s my attempt. It’s tame, heavy for the power it has, but I’ve taken taken it from 320 seconds to 310 with some tuning. Note the G’s with medium compound tires. And it’s still comfortable!
As promised I retuned the engine so it didn’t have quite as heinous a torque profile. As a result I was able to make the car significantly lighter. The torque curve now strongly resembles the curve used in the WRT Turbo engines, though tempered slightly by the power:weight restriction.
After stripping the car slightly to meet the power:weight ratio of 310bhp/tonne, the Mesos HeadHunter now puts out 337hp but with a lighter chassis, it goes around the corners just that little bit quicker. As predicted, I actually gained over a second on the downhill run!
So there you go, guess it’s not all about having the maximum HP all the time!
Here is my entry. Basically, a Civic with an L98 (350ci) shoveled under the hood (with heavy use of petroleum jelly to assist). It originally had RWD, but 1st-3rd were nothing but wheelspin so I made it AWD with a 6th gear. I’m pretty sure I’ve met the BHP/Tonne requirement. If not, maybe someone can help me understand that better. Like any good SBC motor, it gets horrendously shitty MPG, but it screams like a banshee when you ride it hard. Like with the BRC, I still don’t know squat about suspensions, so there’s probably a lot of room left in there for times? She’s running on 215/35-15’s all around, so I know there’s room for improvement there. It just didn’t seem like something “streetable” for 1994 on superwides, at least not in America.
SME-Hatch-D.zip (30.9 KB)
I really don’t get how you guys are going so fast. Even on slicks I just get to 300 seconds with almost 1.3G’s in the corners. Carbon fiber body and panels yields roughly the same results.
[quote=“07CobaltGirl”]I’m pretty sure I’ve met the BHP/Tonne requirement. If not, maybe someone can help me understand that better.
[/quote]
Sorry, but you haven’t met the requirements, but that’s because your game is set to use kW as a unit.
The way the system works is that you can have a maximum of, say, 300hp/tonne. That means that for each ton of car, you can only have 300hp.
A car with 1000 kg, a tonne, could only have 300 hp. One with 1500 kg, could have 450 hp, and so on.
A small formula to calculate the hp per kilo would be: Power (in hp)/ Weight (in kg). If you multiply that ratio by 1000, that’s your hp/tonne.
To convert to other units:
kW to hp: you must multiply the power by 1.341
To change the weight from pounds to kilos (lb to kg), you must take the weight and multiply by 0.454
Your car has 322 kW and 1211 kg, so it’s bhp/tonne is 356.57 hp/tonne, so it’s above the class limit.
I am not sure I was very clear in my explanation, though 
Lightness and good power to weight ratio is the key! Once you have a car that’s pushing the limits on both counts, then you should consider gearing.
[quote=“strop”]
Lightness and good power to weight ratio is the key! Once you have a car that’s pushing the limits on both counts, then you should consider gearing.[/quote]
I’ll futz with that when I get home. Added power, reduced weight, got an even slower time. 
Yes I was initially frustrated at first because that happened to me too. The real fun of this challenge is that like in real touge, you can’t just boost one aspect and expect an improvement, it has to be an integrated package.
Sorry, but you haven’t met the requirements, but that’s because your game is set to use kW as a unit.
The way the system works is that you can have a maximum of, say, 300hp/tonne. That means that for each ton of car, you can only have 300hp.
A car with 1000 kg, a tonne, could only have 300 hp. One with 1500 kg, could have 450 hp, and so on.
A small formula to calculate the hp per kilo would be: Power (in hp)/ Weight (in kg). If you multiply that ratio by 1000, that’s your hp/tonne.
To convert to other units:
kW to hp: you must multiply the power by 1.341
To change the weight from pounds to kilos (lb to kg), you must take the weight and multiply by 0.454
Your car has 322 kW and 1211 kg, so it’s bhp/tonne is 356.57 hp/tonne, so it’s above the class limit.
I am not sure I was very clear in my explanation, though 
[/quote]
OK. I guess the confusing part is the word “tonne”, which you call 1000kg. In the US we call it “ton” and it is 2000 lb. But I did make the mistake of using kW instead of hp for my calculation. Using a “ton” I am still over at 323, so it still does not matter. It might be a good idea to not use statistics which are not actually calculated by the game in the future. I also think it is a bit backwards the NA gets less power than the turbo, given the turbo requires less weight to achieve more power, which makes them much faster by nature. Just an opinion. It rather skews the competition in favor of the turbo.
[quote=“07CobaltGirl”]
OK. I guess the confusing part is the word “tonne”, which you call 1000kg. In the US we call it “ton” and it is 2000 lb. [/quote]
The problem is, as always, mixing the imperial system with the metric system.
Even NASA already messed it all up, causing a satellite aimed for Mars to crash.
I had forgotten about the Imperial Ton (2000 lb, 908 kg), but the metric system has the metric tonne of 1000 kg (that’s how it is written in French, where the metric system was born, and in the UK).
I also think it is a bit backwards the NA gets less power than the turbo, given the turbo requires less weight to achieve more power, which makes them much faster by nature. Just an opinion. It rather skews the competition in favor of the turbo.[/quote]
N/A’s get the nice torque and responsiveness. 
The reason why I lowered the power for NA is because of the tameness. A good tameness really helps here. If you guys want I can bump up the limit though.