So I’ve just realized I don’t exactly know; …what is performance index in this context?
Edit: Also, for lore engine swaps (where we take the engine from another car), what (if anything) are we allowed to change about the swapped engine?
This is how you get a performance index.
2 Likes
8 Likes
1964 Mayster Triumf S1 2.0 Avtosport (M and S)
Come 1964, Mayster had almost finished their development of their first Triumf facelift (to-be called series 1). The S1 incorporated many lessons learned from the initial production run of Mayster’s first ever car as well as the initial customer feedback. The most visible novel feature of an S1 were larger headlights over the S0 to meet market regulations.
A prototype of the regular production S1 Triumf just outside the shed factory ready for a test drive
One major lesson Mayster had learned quite quickly was that many customers cared more about the driving performance than about just cruising with the softtop down. Hence, the S1 was to be offered as a much weight-reduced coupe in addition to a revised roadster. To keep up performance-wise with the new coupe, the S1 roadster was to receive an increased displacement to 2.0 litres in the same engine block.
The Aragan Ĉisisto* racing team had run a S0 1.6 litre Triumf in selected events towards the end of 1962 and had started collaborating with the shed factory in 1963 on developing the S1 towards being more friendly to a racecar conversion. Ĉisisto also ran an initial full 1963 campaign with a single Modified S0 Triumf. For 1964, Mayster decided to back the Ĉisisto outfit as a semi-works operation to run entries this time for both the Modified and Special category in Araga.
The work is done - the 1964 season Modified (yellow) and Special (black) Triumfs in the workshop
The S1 cars came too late to be homologated for the 1964 season, however, so Ĉisisto were stuck with the heavier convertible (and still a single carb engine) from the S0 for the Modified category. They gained special permission though to run the modified S1 front end to meet the updated endurance headlight regulations for 1964.
The revised 1964 season Modified S0/S1 Triumf exiting a corner on an Archanan B-road in testing
In contrast, the more relaxed rules of the Special category allowed them to enter a no-holds barred (and essentially S1) version of the Triumf coupe ahead of the S1’s official market introduction. The Special was substantially lightened and more powerful than its Modified convertible sibling.
The new Special 1964 S1 Triumf in a high-speed banked corner at Mara’s proving grounds just across the lake from the shed factory
Through Mayster’s contacts in the Archanan aircraft industry (who manufactured their engines in the required small quantities), Mayster also had further ideas how to turn the Modified’s engine-related disadvantage into an advantage for the Aragan racing circuit (and also how to magnify the Special’s advantages even further), drawing on their engine supplier’s areas of expertise… unless the upcoming game patch screws me over here
** Bonus points for the first one to crack this easter egg…
3 Likes
Phénix Racing - 1964 Lineup
Phénix Racing, the newly launched racing and performance division of Phénix Auto, is proud to announce 3 competition entries this year.
Rally Class: Kasivah Vyrada 2641 Rally
Jean-Louis Godbout #42
The modified Kasivah now brings 135hp to the field with a slight displacement change. It sports larger AT tires, had its weird VFC3 transmission changed to manual, and some rally enhancements were done in addition to a nice livery. The purple is gone, but the Kasivah is ready to conquer the tracks after dominating sales in the last few years.
Modified Class: Phénix Nymphe Roadster
Gérard Desiré #8
Phénix decided to modify its own car - visually the look has been streamlined, bumper car look gone, and the cabriolet was converted to a pure roaster, rollcage and chopped off windshield included. Internally, not much changed, except it now generates over 115 hp and has a 8.5s second 0-100 acceleration, thanks to the bored out engine to 1.6L. The kicker? It is even sportier and comfortable to drive than the base model! It is ready to compete on the Touring and Endurance race circuit.
Special Class: SAETA Montaraz Teberbergring Prototype
Alphonse Kirshbaum #13
With its extensive experience as a carrosier, Phénix took one of the best small sport car on the market, the Montaraz, and completely stripped it out to rebuild a much more aerodynamic body. This one of a kind prototype has a special high tech inline 6 with injection, still placed midway behind the driver. This engines generates nearly 200hp and with a car weighing under 800kg, it can get from 0 to 100 in 5.3 seconds! Whether competing in TCS M or EAR M, it hopefully can get Phénix Racing on the map.
4 Likes
1964 Saarland Adjunkt 1.4 Wallfahrt Rallye by Irmling
Fledgling Aragan tuner Irmling turned the inauspicious Saarland Adjunkt into a rallye car. How will it perform? Only one way to find out.
3 Likes
(Group T) Centara BHV8 The Widow Storer :
With 188 hp (Coul’d have been more, but way to fast for it’s category 
), it can be fast. While not excelling in the corners, it can sure make them fun !
(Group R) Cesma Colombe RS1400 :
With it’s small engine tuned to 92 hp, it is not the fastest car out here. But with it light weight, it can handle itself quite good on and off the road. Good car to start rallying !
(Group M) The BMA Compaq 246 Requin Blanc :
With the 2.4L I6 tuned to 191 hp and a weight of 958 kg it is sure fast. Although the wing provides a bit of down force, it has been strapped on for show exclusively.
(Group S) The BMA Somptueuse “L’orange pressée” :
What is better than see a refined car loose all it’s dignity in corners ? Maybe that roaring V12, making 333hp and propelling that boat to 257 kph !
5 Likes
The P&A works team, and something else?
Group M: P&A Sportsman Mk.III Race Spec.
A true Group M Touring Car, P&A’s motorsports division lovingly pored over the stock Sportsman to bring out its full potential, modifying the engine and drivetrain for the rigours of TCS and EAR racing. The rest of the car was left mostly stock, although a lighter interior was fitted.
Group S: FMC Sabot S.P.A 12
The S.P.A Group S entry was an interesting one, a heavily modified FMC Sabot with a howling V12 entered by a mysterious team? It was the talk of the motorsports world for a few months, until the season started and the jig was up when everybody recognised the team members from the Group M races, later admitting that it was a P&A skunkworks project for “development research”.
4 Likes
When are the results for the bonus round?
This host has been completely inactive for over a month (at least publicly), probably due to the IRL difficulties they mentioned in the challenge brief. So no one knows; it’ll happen when it happens.
5 Likes
I have indeed been out of action, due to those difficulties and some others - health of various kinds, moving house, a new job… Not great. I do apologise for not posting.
I’ll review what I can of the cars, but I somewhat doubt that they still work given the changes to engineering. My apologies again for the outcome.
In my absence, @cake_ape did start an alternate challenge. Completely fair to do, and Cake made multiple attempts to contact me. This challenge has my blessing, and I am happy that it exists.
As far as ALC is concerned… I am now working full-time, and expect to be in a position to run rounds full-time once more soon. With that in mind, a poll:
Future of ALC poll
- I am interested in two grounded legacy challenges existing
- I am interested in a crazy legacy challenge existing alongside LHC
- I am only interested in one legacy challenge existing
- I am not interested in legacy challenges
0 voters
I do not expect Cake to change LHC on my account, and I completely understand if people only have the capacity for one challenge. The “crazy legacy challenge” option means going for unrealistic future elements, like LEDs in the 80s, fuel being extremely common and cheap, carbon fibre being cheap…
Oh, also, if you feel that I am too likely to vanish again, that’s fair too.
14 Likes
Given that recent game updates have significantly changed the stats of our ALC submissions, I think it would be best to reboot ALC with a new rule set to reflect the effects of the updates.
Welcome back! Glad to hear you’re doing well again, and congrats on the job!
I think if you’re comfortable and willing to continue this challenge, go right ahead. ALC and LHC were always different enough in how they worked that there’s definitely room for both, even if this challenge remains realistic (I’m personally open to the “crazy” idea, but I’m honestly just happy to have ALC back at all). Long-enough deadlines should make it possible to participate in both. As an idea to make it easier, though, perhaps you could coordinate with cake_ape so that one challenge’s submission period always opens as the other’s closes?
Also, as for the racing cars, I took a look at my entries to see how significant the changes to engineering were. Turns out… pretty darn significant.
Of my 2 cars, both got a massive drop in power and sportiness, and a massive boost to drivability. Fuel economy varied inconsistently (the car above got a minor drop, my other one got a massive boost). If that holds true for everyone, then if we ran races now with them (and removed the fuel economy mechanic), we’d still get an approximate idea of how these cars would’ve compared in their prime.
With the poll somewhat split, I’m unsure as to what I’ll do. I have three broad ideas in mind, however. No poll this time - I want people to make comments instead.
Option one: Wait until Cake hits the 80s or 90s, then relaunch as a realistic challenge, with realistic technological progression.
Option two: Wait until Cake hits the 80s or 90s, then relaunch as an unrealistic challenge. LEDs in the 90s, Ethanol and LPG in the… whenever I can make them unlock? Nitromethane as a common fuel, fuel efficiency not mattering, default +10 tech pool for certain items, you get the idea.
Option three: Wait until Cake is done, then relaunch.
Feel free to provide your opinion.
Option two seems like the safest one in my view - diversions from realism might be necessary to set the new ALC apart from the LHC.
1 Like
I agree with abg7 here about going for option two. I think going a bit crazy for a legacy challenge might be a bit fun and set it apart from other such challenges.
1 Like
I’m up for some crazy stuff. Let’s face it, who wouldn’t want to own a V8 powered RWD hot hatch?
2 Likes
Wasn’t there a lobbying question from round 2 on basically the same question? “How unrealistic should design regulations be?” You could base how realistic you make the changes off of that.
Either way, the polls do make it clear that people want ALC back, whatever form it takes, so somewhere between options 1 and 2 seems like the best move.
1 Like