Yeah I’m getting a better performance index number (and by extension more HP) out of the turbo engine I’m running. Its taking a HUGE hit to driveability. Right now, I can’t say how competitive mine is b/c I’m not really sure what is competitive.
I’m going to build using a smaller body for comparison to my probable entry since I want my company’s PPX car to the 90s “race” car (as in both the high end production based races and non-production races, etc) though I’ll have to amend its history b/c its one year too late right now. So it’d be a near-production ready prototype (engine swap and weight-saving measures deployed to be competitive and within regulations) for this competition.
No problem, this is not meant as a dead serious competition, where only winning matters. I hope to see turbos no matter what, but the rule is not going to change again. Only for the next race there could be a new formula.
It’s meant as a gathering of carmakers to see how more can be squeezed out of the same technology. Like, can you make a car exceeds 300 km/h, 325 km/h, 350 km/h etc? That kind of thing. I’m using my experience for a production model, and I already learned a lot. If I can realize all my ideas it could be a sensational car imo.
Cooling requirement is merely a function of horsepower? I thought it’s important because otherwise a car with low cooling requirement could make up for horsepower (cooling costs a lot of speed)
While more HP tends to more cooling the relationship is not at all proportional. Other factors include how rich the fuel runs, how much boost on the turbo there is, layout of the engine, and the tech year (cooling efficiency improves over time). So turbos running aggressive boost tend to require a LOT more cooling than the NA engines with the same output.
Though I think this is not helping the case of a big turbo handicap. 170hp/220 km/h is fine to cruise on the Autobahn in normal traffic, but not for the AVUS race
[quote=“BurningBridges”]@07CobaltGirl thanks for the example.
Though I think this is not helping the case of a big turbo handicap. 170hp/220 km/h is fine to cruise on the Autobahn in normal traffic, but not for the AVUS race
We will see after the race it will be clearer.[/quote]
Well, this is just an example. There are serious limitations in this competition. Only vanilla bodies are allowed, eliminating many of the more aero-efficient bodies. These are small engines, which means HP is limited. From a 1L engine, you really can’t expect a whole lot more than 200hp. From the 2L engines, I wouldn’t expect more than 350hp (and those would actually surprise me). No undercooling is allowed, which puts a strain on speed as more HP means more cooling. Lastly, this is 1990, not 2015. I know race cars were capable of high speeds and low drag long before this time, but these cars we are building are much less capable, as the aero bodies are heavy and the light bodies are bricks, as already discussed. Even with all of this, high-end sports cars were barely closing on the 210mph (340km/h) mark in 1990, and they were far more expensive than the budget we’re getting. I don’t expect to see any cars in that range for this competition, unless they manage to build a motorcycle.
Same engine, different body. Still not quite to the 40k max.
The winner of the race is the car with the best lap time.
What else would you suggest? My idea was to multiply the track time by 36, to get a 300 km race.
In the future I could make this an endurance race and calculate the reliability according to the formula I gave some posts earlier. The downside is with reliability 50 there is still a 1% chance that you don’t finish. The advantage would be that we theoretically need no fixed reliability requirement.
For this race there would be (if I can make this all work in Excel as I want)
best overall time
gaps
best lap time
best top speed
highest reliability
If no one disagrees I can also make a spreadsheet with important data like weight, engine, total cost, reliability and so on.
Some car seem to be clearly under the limit so there can also be very successful cars which do not make the best time but have for example greater practical reliability or low cost.
To be honest, I’d prefer if it was kept as simple as possible. I’ve built and pretty much finished tuning my car already, and can’t really be bothered to re-adapt it to new rules and such.
Ah, ok. In that case, these ideas sound good but please don’t make it too complex. The simplicity of this round is what made me build a car for it, because I’m tired of super complicated challenges to be honest
Here are the proposed rules for 1991. Again, this has no bearing on the rules on page 1 for the current race, which are final!
I have removed the exhaust / intake requirement but specified a stricter cooling.
I also suggest 3 classes now. The CU (unlimited) class is unrestricted as to cost, whereas C1 and C2 have individual cost restrictions.
The other rules apply to all classes.
The handicap for turbos is not going to stay 2:1 unless I get convincing evidence that a turbo could win. I suggest an approach with individual handicap factors per class, because of course there is a weight penalty for small turbo engines.
EDIT: There will also be a rule that I install the community modpack, and if it still not works, you are screwed. Better keep it simple and design cars with official parts only.
Just want to give a warning that I receive cars which cause problems because of modded fixtures. This is already turning out to become a major pain in the ass.
If you use mods you have to point me to the required mod pack. I will install the modpacks, but otherwise as the rules say, if it still not works it’s your risk.
If a car fails or falls short of the rules, they will be run in the inofficial field like my own car, and their times will still be published. So there is no problem you just cannot win the competition that way.
Also Total Expense per Car must be < 40,000 for a Tiny run. It can be found under Detail Stats. This is an important rule because I dont like designs that get all their performance through maxing quality sliders.
You can max out individual sliders though, as long as its within the limit.
Just to clarify. We will run and publish every car that we receive. Cars that have cooling failure (for example by a missing grille) or reliability under the required 50, but otherwise adhere to the rules will be run and listed in the official event, and have their times published, but simply rated as “DNF”. This can happen if a car develops problems but the times are still published.
Cars that fail the major rules (like displacement, tyres or total cost limit) will also be run, but in the inofficial field that is still of great interest to us (press and as technology showcase and an important part of the event).
I hope if someone ends up in the inofficial field he/she will not take it personal. It is only to show that while everyone can participate and while all cars are important to us, we cannot run after everyone if there is a problem with the rules.
A have a turbo and NA engine ready (neither have 50 reliability but I will change that for 91) just need to figure out what is the best chassis-engine combo. Remind me please, for the 1990 competition is minimum cooling restricted to what engine needs or we can go lower
In the 1990 race you can still go lower, until the the “Overview” page goes white. It happens when you fall under 50 car reliability, so it is perfectly in sync with the rule.
Tuning the cooling to the bare minimum is actually recommended and worth a few km/h. Just keep in mind that both engine and car stay > 50
