You were grossly under budget and should have handed in all the papers in time 
Like I said, I’ll try again “next year.” Also, The “Trans-am” may make a return.
I mean you probably knew that 207 km/h would not really cut it. That’s about what my 1988 Golf I Cabrio could achieve on a very good day roof closed of course.
I knew it would suck. I can’t make anything go fast, they’re always so stupidly slow. I need to learn how to make a fast car…
I had a look at your cars and tbh couldn’t find anything I would NOT consider a mistake (AWD drive, illegal exhaust and intake that cost you a place in the race, hopelessly over weight, underpowered, unreliable, wasted expense and tuning potential and so on). So if you take your designs and do everything different, you should have a guaranteed improvement 
But seriously, your next designs will be a huge improvement, I am absolutely sure of that.
After seeing the entry list, i knew turbo was the way to go, but i did not believe that the difference is going to be that huge, considering the added drag and driveabilty penalty. 400Hp from a 1.0 Liter? I guess i learned something new. I didn’t really bother trying a turbo because i thought there is no way of making over 340-350 per liter.
BurningBridges, thank you for hosting this cool challenge. I’ll be there next year for sure 
Lol, as soon as I heard about the 356 body I just couldn’t be bothered to re-design my car for a third time. Shall try harder next season.
so i still hold the first place for non-porsche bodied?
and i’d like to mention my car was the one that actually conviced you that 1:2 NA to Turbo is appropriate. possibly still a bit too big… since barely any NA is up on the list
Koolkei, the best non Porsche is Terror FWD (non Mini), but you are good 2nd. I think around 2:00 is possible with several bodies, just not the crazy 1:56s. Even a FFWD Porsche hit a magic wall at ca 1:59.
Btw I think it’s going to be 1 : 2.25 in future races. Even with fuel rules something has to change in favor of the natural aspirated engines, otherwise this is stupid.
There is now time to make suggestions. I have some commitments and dont know when the next round takes place. But this race was definitely a success, and I know now how this track works!
[quote=“asdren”]After seeing the entry list, i knew turbo was the way to go, but i did not believe that the difference is going to be that huge, considering the added drag and driveabilty penalty. 400Hp from a 1.0 Liter? I guess i learned something new. I didn’t really bother trying a turbo because i thought there is no way of making over 340-350 per liter.
BurningBridges, thank you for hosting this cool challenge. I’ll be there next year for sure [/quote]
Yep, I had not expected much more than 330 hp so this was a huge surprise when I saw the first 400 hp. I’d believed my 285 hp NA was going to be a contender, actually we were both pretty close but eventually both chanceless.
Here is also the latest suggestion for the new rules.
Turbo handicap is increased to 2.25:1 and pitstops / fuel calculation is added for final classification.
Porsche 356 body will be banned from competition and only allowed for record attempts.
What about the minimum required engine cooling?
car/engine 50/50 as it was
when I tried minimum cooling required, horsepower gains were eaten up to a point where it may not be fun.
I calculated MTBF for a 1,000 km long race, I hope this shows why I think 50 is actually a good value.
At 50, chance to fail in the 1000 km race is ca 2%.
MTBF above 50 achieves nothing, reliability goes from 98% (REL 50) to 99% (REL 100), a mere 1%
In fact other values be optimal (5-10% chance to fail), but it’s not possible with the way the program works (MTBF drops to 0.0 once under a 50 threshold)
So the gods at camshaft have more or less decided that 50 is a magic number where cars are no longer reliable.
Sort of, but not quite.
Engine reliability automatically drops to 0 when the ventilation of the engine is less than half that which is required. The ‘overall reliability’ figure given in the Trim section is merely the averages of the reliability of the engine plus the reliability of other components. Thus the overall reliability will not automatically go to 0 when it is less than 50, but only when the engine reliability is 0.
The main problem is that one cannot tell what the reliability of the engine actually is after cooling has been accounted for. But based on previous builds, it seems that the relationship is mostly linear:
[code]For actual ventilation < required ventilation/2: Engine adjusted reliability = 0, Car reliability = 0
For required ventilation/2 =< actual ventilation =< required ventilation: Engine adjusted reliability = engine reliability * (2 - required ventilation/actual ventilation)
For actual ventilation > required ventilation: engine adjusted reliability = engine reliability[/code]
At least, I think that’s how it works IIRC. The reason you were seeing a lot of average reliability = 50 before it went to zero is because with a lot of tech sliders, the average reliability of the other components closes towards 100. If all the parts were standard and more or less 0 tech in 1990, it’d probably be closer to 70-80.
Certainly.
Point in case was just that 50/50 is a good value.
If I allow engine reliability <50 people will have to build engines that ruin their components in short time, with major parts going orange and red.
If I allow engine reliability <50 they will run without ventilation because that gives 10% more top speed.
If you allow engine reliability <50, you still can’t run without ventilation because the engine will still be insufficiently reliable to run the simulation 
(this part has been fixed compared to previous builds where it was entirely possibly to race a car with an MTBF of 0).
That said given everything else, reliability of 50 is good. I’m only correcting misunderstandings about the game mechanic so others who don’t know won’t get the wrong idea.
I have seen values as low as 40. Just wanted to say that there is a threshold in the calculation where it drops to 0, so we cannot go lower than ca 40 or whatever the threshold will be.
Besides any other value would be just as arbitrary so 50 it is.
Also, 50 IS approximately the magic threshold before you start fiddling with any of the quality sliders, so it is the average of averages.
Here the full, planned rules for 1991
Calculation of fuel consumption may sound a bit complicated, but is based on very simple logic that I have tried on previous pages.
E.g. If a car has a 60 Liter tank and 20 liter / 100km consumption it has to make 1 stop every 300 km. That’s all there is to it.
