Wow, that’s so terrible it broke the Automation economy calculator…
lol 5487400.8 emissions…
This car will change the entire environment into hell in 1 hour drive.
Well, not exactly. It is actually 0.02 MPG IIRC.
So on a single lap of Airfield, your car will burn up 80 gallons, and that’s if you drive it economically 
[quote=“nerd”]
Well, not exactly. It is actually 0.02 MPG IIRC.[/quote]
Should have just built a jet engine.
Does the engine use gasoline as its primary coolant and just dump it out the bottom of the radiator too?
In actuality, without race tires, it should be possible if automation doesn’t round up, since .900 is a 1.26 G acceleration sustained. A mu of 1.35 is not unreasonable for semislick tires, if I remember correctly (which for those of you unlearned in physics means 1.35 G acceleration max, which also leads to the surprising conclusion for those who don’t know that weight does not matter for acceleration if it is traction-limited instead of power-limited).
One would need a mu of over 1.424 to get below .800, which I believe is better than the tires in Automation can reach, though that would need dev confirmation.
^in another word? or in english?
my brain just went poof…
gt1cooper is talking in Newtonian physics. Just remember that as far as the planet Earth is concerned, 1G of acceleration at the surface is approximately 9.812m/s/s. Then it should all make sense (once you’ve plugged in all the numbers and converted the units).
Pretty much. The necessary basic formula to know is that F = (mu)N, or that Force of Friction = (Coefficient of Friction)(Normal Force). The normal force is the force of the ground pushing up on the car, and in an ideal case would be exactly equal to the force of gravity, mass(g = 9.81).
Since force applied = mass x acceleration, and the maximum force applied is equal to the mass times gravity, with a mu of 1, we get that mg = ma, or g = a, which means that mass does not affect acceleration at all when it is traction limited.
If we look at this : hpwizard.com/tire-friction-coefficient.html
we can see a general representation of the coefficients of friction for vehicle tires. I do believe it is slightly conservative for the top of the line high performance tires, but outside of that it’s fairly good. The easy thing to see is that if we assume 100% of a car’s mass is on the drive wheels (all 4 wheels driven, usually), the coefficient of friction there is the exact amount of acceleration in g’s the car can ever pull on those tires (ignoring lift, drag, downforce, and assuming that the car is able to hold itself perfectly at the right amount of power to each wheel).
For anything other than a car with all 4 wheels driven, if you can figure out how much mass of the car is on the driven wheels during acceleration, the maximum amount of acceleration in g’s will be equal to the coefficient of friction multiplied by whatever percentage of the weight is on those wheels.
Edit: I should also add that the coefficient of friction is not defined by just the tires, but also by the surface they are on. It is the coefficient of friction of _____ on _______ (rubber on asphalt etc.)
…which is why it is so important to pay attention to track conditions. Most games haven’t really instituted this and so tend to assume optimal track conditions. Then there was the time I jumped into a race in Assetto Corsa, didn’t notice the track was green, and promptly spun out and shunted into a wall… On the starting straight 
Wow, production cars with sub 1:10 times. I haven’t made anything that even comes close to that.
Oh well, may as well post my favourite creation.
Name: DMS Bronco Track Package
Intended Use: Limited Production Road Car
Year: 2010
Power/Torque: 701 hp @ 7800 rpm/ 503 ft-lbs @ 7000 rpm
Price: 67,989 (+31%)
Turbo or NA: NA
Weight: 4182.9 lbs
Format: FR Muscle/Sport Coupe
Pictures
I gave the race category a shot; Not sure how to submit something though.
The Gryphon name has been resurrected, which was a series of vehicles I started back in April 2014. They are purely the most ridiculous of my creations.
There a few more deciseconds that could be squeezed off the time; Although It would be better off starting from scratch with a lighter design, as this is a pretty brute force approach.
Race car airfield submission;
Original larger images; imgur.com/a/iSwLw
Time; 1:03.08
Name of car: DXM - Gryphon IIS
Intended use: Race
Year: 2020
Power & Torque ratings: 1460hp, 976ft-lbs
Turbo or NA: NA
Weight: 1282.8kg
Format: AWD
For some reason, the drivability and sportiness both display 0. They only display correctly if I reduce the brake disk sizes; However, this increased lap times.
Oho, a car named Gryphon, not to be confused with the company named Gryphon Gear!
That’s a bigass engine you have in there, which body were you using? And if the simulation runs, then probably that reliability thing is a bug. Weird.
He’s using the Corvette sorta body. The one where engines stick out of the bonnet.
Naturally, that’s one of the few that can take such a thing! Fairly impressed that it can even do that kind of time, compared to the MR cars.
The hammer is mightier than the sword 
Here we go.
Name of car: PAK Crown Jewel - Hyper Race Concept
Intended use: Race (Prototype)
Year: 2016
Power & Torque ratings: 7091cc Flatplane V8, 1077HP @ 6600RPM - 1298Nm @ 3100RPM
Turbo or NA: Twin Turbo
Weight: 1364,3KG
Format (MR, F-AWD etc.): F-AWD
Please don’t post your download link in the thread, because people might try copying it.
Leaderboard updated. Also added a rule regarding the years that production cars can be made in.
I will move the data to the Google Doc sheet when I get off my lazy fucking ass.
