Since it’s the late 1980s I don’t use a catalytic converter. I don’t think they were used in real racing back then either. In years where the sporty metallic/high flow converter is available I am tempted to use it though, but decided against it in the first ATCC as well.
Don’t worry about turbo, I went turbo just because I wanted it. It fitted better into the idea I have for my still non existing car company. Tests showed that on all tracks but the speedy ones (well, 3 out of 5 tested) the NA version was faster, had 485hp NA available back then though, and overall seemed to be the better choice. Chassis is still one area I still don’t know what I’m really doing, so more power might help. Or not if the added tameness would help to fix the weaknesses of the chassis better than power succeeds in trying to cover it up.
[quote=“Leonardo9613”]Do you know the problem with having a fixed turbo?
Tests.
I would have to spend (even more) time balancing the requirements and how the championship would work. Besides, it would limit the possibilities of the championship, restricting creative approaches and increasing development, with no fun bonus. And the worst thing would be the complaints, they would say that it isn’t big enough or that it is too large, etc, etc.
I based these rules on group A’s original set of rules, but turbo restriction or cooling limits weren’t considered for long.[/quote]
Sorry, my post was misleading. I didn’t meant restrictions by the rules of a competition. I meant the limitation by the game that both turbos have to be of the same size on a biturbo engine. Although I’m not sure since when different sizes of turbos are used in real, or as biturbo with V engines at all. The V8 being biturbo already helps though, with an inline single turbo engine things are even more difficult.
[quote=“Leonardo9613”]There are NA cars with more than 500 hp on this challenge, the recipe to them is very straight forward.
Use a very short stroke and good bottom end parts, then use DOHC 5v and cam profile set to max, the key thing here is to give a lot of quality, therefore valve float, and the drop in power it causes, will happen later. Once you add the possibility of revving higher and a good exhaust, you should be good to at least 470 hp.[/quote]
I think that for equality you should point to a limited power/weight relation. About 500hp per tonne or so. What do you think?
I don’t use 5valves and i could improve the engine, but i preffer to do a good chassis.
[quote=“Leonardo9613”]There are NA cars with more than 500 hp on this challenge, the recipe to them is very straight forward.
Use a very short stroke and good bottom end parts, then use DOHC 5v and cam profile set to max, the key thing here is to give a lot of quality, therefore valve float, and the drop in power it causes, will happen later. Once you add the possibility of revving higher and a good exhaust, you should be good to at least 470 hp.[/quote]
I think that for equality you should point to a limited power/weight relation. About 500hp per tonne or so. What do you think?
I don’t use 5valves and i could improve the engine, but i preffer to do a good chassis.[/quote]
There’s a minimum weight limit, which keeps the entries relatively close in HP/KG, so long as you make an nice motor. From that point on, it is just up to tuning the car.
Sent my entry in, hope all goes well. I’m definitely feeling underpowered and overweight, I hope all that time spent in the wind tunnel will be enough to compensate…
First, I would like to remember every one that there are only two days remaining for entries!
However, I must announce, this time there won’t be the trump cards.
I am too busy right now, due to moving between houses, and I prefer to continue with the original schedule than to delay everything and make the cards.
The reason is the sheer amount of time it takes me to do it all correctly. On the last ATCC, I spend roughly 6 hours doing all the 37 cards. I don’t have that time right now.
I will however find a solution to display Conan’s brilliant comments on the cars though. The stat comparison graphs will also be made since they demand very little time, now that I have all the data.
@leo: DW, the tables and charts are the bulk of the info! If anything, all you’d have to do is release the power: wt chart first, and then all we’d be missing is the snide remarks
This car might look a bit familiar to anyone who participated in the first ATCC, so I’m going to have a go at making a prequel to the previous story…
May I present the Penonez SuperTouring RV8.
In 1987, a factory Polonez team made the decision to try and expand the motorsport success of the Polonez outside of the rally world. The budget allocated to the project was reasonably sizable, and several base cars were sent out to 4 different tuning companies, each of which would produce their attempt at a car. Each car ended up being completely different, one entry even with a small mid-engined turbo power unit. After the 4 cars were completed, the winning design was chosen.
The design that came through was that of Peniston Motor House, a small tuning and motorsports specialist in South Yorkshire, in England. Peniston already had race experience with the Rover V8 engine, a lightweight engine around the correct size. Using a modified crankshaft, they reduced the capacity of a 3.5 RV8 engine to just under the strict 3500cc limit. They had previously developed SOHC heads for the engine, but due to the new budget allocated to them they were able to further develop this into a high flow DOHC setup. The engine proved to be strong and free revving, so was chosen as the final power unit.
Suspension was changed to a more updated design, along with a braking system more capable of withstanding race use.
The final car was to be sponsored by Peniston in order to try and gain business, in the hope that the car would be a success. Due to the Rover V8 unit the engine was based on, the name “Penonez SuperTouring RV8” was chosen.
As we now know, the remnants of the Penonez team would later be bought out by Peniston and re-developed to race in the mid-90s BTCC championship. At this point in time however, whether the Penonez would prove as successful as they hoped remained relatively unknown.
[size=50]
(Think I wrote that pretty well, given that in the original ATCC I basically said this was a failed project… )[/size]
Its got a 3500cc 466HP I6 NA engine in it. I chose I6 engine because they tend to be smoother and I also wanted something other then a V8 which everyone seems to jump for. The I6 engine is also lighter then a V8 engine.
Thanks to everyone who sent their cars. Entries are now closed.
I will update the entry list as soon as I am able to test all the new cars.
First race results will probably be available around this time of night tomorrow.
And, for those who haven’t seen my previous post, this time, due to time shortage, I won’t make the trump cards.
Will you reveal the full schedule first or go race by race?
EDIT: Seeing as there won’t be trump cards, I’m happy to distribute the stats of my own build. I certainly don’t have the most powerful car here, with 481hp, and the chassis I used was certainly not the smallest or lightest, and the weight distribution is pretty terrible, but somehow I actually found myself having to look for weight to put on the car! I’m hoping that its relatively high tameness (about 40), will help it ride the bumps and technical sections better than the previous entry!
EDIT 2: Deleted stats image. Forgot Leo will be releasing them progressively.
[quote=“strop”]Exciting stuff! And once again a big turnout too.
Will you reveal the full schedule first or go race by race?
EDIT: Seeing as there won’t be trump cards, I’m happy to distribute the stats of my own build. I certainly don’t have the most powerful car here, with 481hp, and the chassis I used was certainly not the smallest or lightest, and the weight distribution is pretty terrible, but somehow I actually found myself having to look for weight to put on the car! I’m hoping that its relatively high tameness (about 40), will help it ride the bumps and technical sections better than the previous entry!
It will be interesting to see if those stats are what determines everything or if its the tameness and sport ratings. Your car beats mine in everything but Aero Eff and Top speed (by some wide margins to) but my tame rating is 20 points higher then yours (mine is closer to 60 then 40) as I was hoping to make it easier to throw my car around the track.
How well did you do on the airfield track and the automation track?
I’ll still release the charts race by race with the stat comparison, the only thing that won’t be there will be the cars photos on a card, like it did last time.
About the track order, not even I know which track I’ll run first. I think I’ll use a randomiser of some sort.
But what about if we do our own trump card (same format as the last ones, exactly the same, but with no comments) and send them to Leo? would that work?
Not sure if sarcastic, that took me all of five minutes to set up, hahaha?
)[/size]