[quote=“BurningBridges”]I believe you were also a bit at a disadvantage with your choice of chassis, also the fuel strategy did not really work well for your turbo.
That means lap time was not quick enough for a turbo, in spite of a good strategy,[/quote]
Yes, I could probably get about 100-140 extra horses out of that engine at a cost of 1 pit stop. Well, not a bad start for the top speed races. Im new to this anyway
2nd and 4th in my first competition? Not too shabby, can’t be unhappy with that result 
Pretty proud getting dead on midfield in the C50 race (the pocket rocket was my ‘what if I made a crazy city hatch’), my C60 cars could have dona a little better but oh well
[quote=“squidhead”]
[quote=“BurningBridges”]I believe you were also a bit at a disadvantage with your choice of chassis, also the fuel strategy did not really work well for your turbo.
That means lap time was not quick enough for a turbo, in spite of a good strategy,[/quote]
Yes, I could probably get about 100-140 extra horses out of that engine at a cost of 1 pit stop. Well, not a bad start for the top speed races. Im new to this anyway[/quote]
It was a brave try, and you were the only one who went that route. It could have worked, I had you on place one for a long time.
The optimum is a bit over 640 hp for a 1.6L and over 480 for a 1.2L, which is what you get when you scale up the 1000cc engines. A V12 turbo should go still higher, but one thing that is quite important is that there is a big difference in cost between a 4,6,8 or 12 cylinder design. Make of this what you want, but I begun now calculating with hp per cylinder for in this type of race. In the beginning I only built V8s because of the better stroke, they have a lot of extra reliability, but as long as I can get similar results with a 4 or 6 cylinder I would probably try that first.
Yes, a very good result from you. Your engines develop quite a lot of power actually, afaik the 2.85L was even the most powerful N/A in its class. Pit stops were a bit too closely missing the threshold though, thats were you could have found 2 extra minutes (both cars), but of course this would go a bit detrimental to engine power. Perhaps you find other ways to optimize fuel consumption in the future. I had also put an Excel file in the first post with which you can check your own fuel consumption, maybe you should check that out.
The LeMans was going quite well, but V12 and weight were maybe working a bit at your disadvantage. Seems the Pocket rocket was doing quite well in spite of a really low performance index.
[quote=“BurningBridges”]
Yes, a very good result from you. Your engines develop quite a lot of power actually, afaik the 2.85L was even the most powerful N/A in its class. Pit stops were a bit too closely missing the threshold though, thats were you could have found 2 extra minutes (both cars), but of course this would go a bit detrimental to engine power. Perhaps you find other ways to optimize fuel consumption in the future. I had also put an Excel file in the first post with which you can check your own fuel consumption, maybe you should check that out.[/quote]
Yeah, I realised that. I hadn’t taken that into consideration in that level of detail. Unfortunately I didn’t have the time to try and optimize my designs with pit stops in mind. Guess that will be a point of focus for the next race 
[quote=“BurningBridges”]
The LeMans was going quite well, but V12 and weight were maybe working a bit at your disadvantage. Seems the Pocket rocket was doing quite well in spite of a really low performance index.[/quote]
Hopefully I will do better next race as I am starting to gain more knowledge from trial and error
I think you should start implementing engine damage over time due to overheat
Hm how could that work?
And as to a new race, currently there will be a longer pause (rl). Races at an earlier time are a possibility, maybe something in the 1970s? Perhaps something crazy like a Can Am event in West Berlin??
First need to think if I can make a better version of the race track, how this could be made more interesting in general and when I have time. Also I will probably no more be able to check cars individually as I did, cars will have to adhere to the naming guidelines and a general procedure will be taken for insufficient cooling and stuff, that was all a bit more work that I had hoped.
Still the 2 reunification events were still great fun and have yielded great knowledge about cars performance, cost efficiency and the AVUS track.
Based on percentage of the air supply not being sufficient, I am guessing. As the race goes on, the engine is running hotter and hotter, and loses power. This should be tested but how about
each 5% of insufficient cooling (950 cooling where 1000 is needed), will add extra 0.05 second of extra lap time each 2nd lap. As in in 2 laps it’s 0.05, in 4 laps it’s 0.1, i 6 laps it’s 0.15 etc etc. So in the course of 40 laps you’re losing a second off your lap time due to engine running overly hot and not having enough cold air to breathe freely. If the total amount of penalties go over for example 2 seconds per lap, you start losing 0.05 seconds per lap on EACH lap (cause engine is really about to die), and when you get to 3 seconds per lap slower - the engine locks shut and you suffer an accident (locked engine at 350kph, that’s a given)
Interesting, but one thing I already know is that running at optimum cooling kills most possible gains through extra hp. I tried that before the second race and didnt like it. So it would be a feature that is hard to balance.
Also check my mtbf calculations I did somewhere else (if you can locate them). They showed that reliability of 30 or 40 is absolutely enough, chance to fail is only 2-3% over a 1000km race.
But I like the general idea of allowing any possible value for reliability ( provided the car does calculate something in the Overview tab ), and penalize percentage differences somehow, that could make it a bit easier to handle the competition too.
And by the way, I would offer you to run a competition yourself (would hand over all my excel sheets), because it could produce a few new ideas.
My long term plan was to make a race on the extended Dessau track which would be faster still than the Avus, but also have a sector with some corners.
actually, now that I think of it - adding a specific amount of seconds is not going to work. It should be adding a time multiplier. Like not 0.05 seconds extra, but the multiplier would be x1,005 and not 0.1 seconds but x1,01. That way more faster cars will suffer more, whille leaving the penalty thresholds still measured in seconds per lap lost would mean there won’t be a specific “If i chose this much cooling % then I will guarantee finish race”
Also, no, thanks. I got to figure out where to take this top speed dessau thing and how to make it better first. Maybe later, running 2 competitions would be harder and produce no results. I think concentrating on 1 thing is much better
Ok, just meant you can do it if you want and because I cant for rl
I think it is actually more complicated but in any case (Time including cooling time penalty) Tc is = laptime * 1+n with n being somehow calculated from the delta between cooling vs cooling required. The integral over 1+n (from 0 to number of laps) could be used to calculate the precise track time. Any linear factor for n is probably b/s because a really clever guy could calculate a formula for the optimum absolute cooling (there is a gain in speed/laptime for every KJ/s which can be maximized vs the cooling time penalty, if you understand enough math).
This is to say that coming up with some formula is one thing but balancing all the repercussions beforehand is quite another.
Another thing is that afaik race cars actually become faster with each lap, because of the decreasing weight of fuel. Then they go to pits to refuel and the same patterns start again.
Niiiceee 3rd place with a sedan 
"Air-Resistance"Jordan
Sorry long post
Concerning discussion about reliability I have copied a relevant section from a post by strop
This goes with my observations although not down to a t. When the required cooling of the engine is 1000 reliability drops to zero at ca 500 but not precisely
This is still not 100% understood on my part. But <50 total reliability is possible if you lower the reliability of other components. It gets down to ca 45.0 or so, how much does not depend on the engine.
[quote=“strop”]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][/quote]
I think it’s clear what the good strop is trying to tell us: when ventilation < 1/2 * required ventilation → reliability drops to 0
And there is a formula to calculate engine reliability with respect to cooling. It takes some time to figure out his formula, but it can be done 
Clear?
Hell no instead of this math talk I always need to see some actual calculation. I dont know about you, but I am not so much of a math guy, only when I see numbers it becomes clear.
What I can see without any calculation is that the current rule means that 1/2 * cooling * 50.0 reliability = 25.0
That means, if car reliability and engine reliability are both 50.0, the resulting reliability is 25.0
Now if this is MTBF (is it?) I could dig out this thing I did here not long ago:
http://www.automationgame.com/phpBB3/download/file.php?id=18505
That would mean if MTBF == 25(*1000 km?) → Chance to fail in 1,000 km = 3,92%
Ok so I could make a spreadsheet where you enter actual cooling and cooling required, as well as engine reliability and it would give the resulting engine reliability (?)
It would normally be a value in the range of 20-45 and it could then be fed into the MTBF formula which gives the chance to finish the race, which would be ca 95% and up
I can say in advance that I dont like an random generation. But If we calculate the remaining percent into some sort of mechanical pit stop time, it would perhaps achieve what squidhead was suggesting (?) and without strop doing the facepalm (??)