@peskyboyz: Errors are percentages of maximum possible error. I think I had a 90-something error on the Green Hell in the 1945 BRC that cost twenty-five seconds, but most errors do not have as severe consequences as that.
Itās odd that you said that, because your car didnāt actually have that many by my (sloppy, hasty) count.*
As far as I can tell, without controlling for severity of error, the counts are:
[ol][li]Razyx, zabhawkin, TrackpadUser, AshleyBlack, JasonPoland, Lordred, CWRules, HighOctaneLove[/li]
[li]strop, TheBobWiley, 07CobaltGirl, mattmr2, Pleb, UltimateBMWfan, conan, mer_at, Der Bayer[/li]
[li]Chipskate, RubenSL[/li]
[li]Tycondero, peskyboyz, BlastersPewPew, Locust[/li]
[li]Killrob[/li]
[li]NormanVauxhall[/li]
[li]Pyrlix[/li][/ol]
ā¦with RobtheFiend, Leo9613, Packbat (myself), Richard117, and victorgarcia managing a full 10 laps error-free.
[size=85]* I was watching the video to estimate my time loss due to tyre wear - if I lose less than 0.5 seconds from my fastest lap time after 10, I think the sport compound is likely to have been worthwhile. This error count was something I did as a secondary thing.[/size][/quote]
Was mainly commenting on the total number of errors. The whole information area was full of errors 
My first guess was that the Sierra-Mist* body was especially twitchy, but victorgarcia and Richard117 were running with that body and had no errors and Pyrlix with the same body I used had the most errors. So I guess itās just the year. 
[size=85]* i.e. not-Sprite[/size]
with these 175 tires, must have low power and weight, the secret is to get the engine right [quote=āPackbatā]My first guess was that the Sierra-Mist* body was especially twitchy, but victorgarcia and Richard117 were running with that body and had no errors and Pyrlix with the same body I used had the most errors. So I guess itās just the year.
[size=85]* i.e. not-Sprite[/size][/quote]
Hmm ā¦ just out of curiosity: your car more or less than 800 kg?
Anyone else finding that 155/165 tires have a faster lap time than 165/165? My mini is about 3/10ths of a second faster with smaller front tires :
Both setups get equally anal suspension tuning.
I hope at least 1 full week from now. Bayer should let us know, that way we know how much time we have to redesign, prepare.
Bob: at the moment no, but Iāll go back and look. Did your drivability increase though?
I thought that errors were randomised based on probability derived from drivability over sportiness. The degree of error however was pure chance?
My first error was a 45 or something, I ran extremely wide and outbraked myself at the end of the long flying section and it cost me nearly ten seconds! Ten seconds! I guess that the location combined with severity of error produces the end result, and further guess that long steep tightening curve was a very bad place to make a significant error. Either way I can totally imagine going hell for leather and completely messing up the line there while trying for a hot lap 
Increasing tyre wear seems like a logical move. Passing a couple of things about the field, it seems thereās a clear difference in compound choices but right now the race is in favour of the slicks, given ten laps of ATT already takes 23 minutes. With inreased tyre wear, howeverā¦ Will we start to see more overlapped times as degradation becomes more severe? That is the hope at least, for exciting racing!
Also here I was thinking even 700kg was akin to bus-like for this race
My mini sits about 631kg and the coupe at a massive 820 currently. Trying to determine if a lighter coupe and smaller engine is better than heavier/bigger. However the coupeās top speed is absolute crap :
I really canāt seem to find any more power from the mini and am astonished by how fast the people ahead of me areā¦ just might enter my coupe variant for the LOLsā¦
Yeah, good setups on slicks (the top 6) still have ~.85 wear at the end, compared to ~.9 for those running sports (me, Leo, NormanVauxhall)
Hoping it will give a bit more of an advantage to sports, which are definitively never going to have the hotlapping/qualifying advantage.
Hi guys!
Iām new here in the competitive threads and I think itās about time I joined in, however late I might be.
After a few evolutions and revolutions my current BRC 1955 competitor is now below 2:42 at the Automation Track. The car might have about another second to give but I have to focus on all the other reliability factors.
Being a rookie without racing experience I donāt really know what thresholds the car needs to withstand a full race. Is there any chance someone could share a few recommendations with the noob?
BR,
Dobble
Ā± 630kg for me
ā¦yāall have really light cars. I might have to change my strategy a little.
starts contemplating undercooling
@Dobble: I believe my BRC 1945 car had an engine reliability of 34.2 and total reliability of 63.9, and it survived all the 1945-season races run so far, including the car-eating Green Hell. I tend to spread my quality slider spending around, but I donāt think how you achieve your numbers matters to BROBOT.
[quote=āPackbatā]ā¦yāall have really light cars. I might have to change my strategy a little.
starts contemplating undercooling
@Dobble: I believe my BRC 1945 car had an engine reliability of 34.2 and total reliability of 63.9, and it survived all the 1945-season races run so far, including the car-eating Green Hell. I tend to spread my quality slider spending around, but I donāt think how you achieve your numbers matters to BROBOT.[/quote]
Thank you Packbat.
My current car has an engine reliability of 30,8 and a total avg. reliability of 52,2. Is there any chance you could share some other factors I should keep my eyes on?
The next test will probably happen after the next weekend, maybe on Tuesday.
Fuel consumption: although most of the cars here appear relatively frugal so judging by that first test, you can expect your car to be laden with anywhere from 10-16kg fuel for a half hour race, on average. As tested by Automation, cars seem to be returning estimated consumption of under 5 to over 8L/100km for the most part.
I also get the impression that many cars have relatively highly optimised suspension setups. The front runners would generally be pulling about 1.2-1.24g in the 20m circle test, though this may become less important when tyre wear increases as cornering on sports is obviously poorer than on slicks.
Sports can pull at least 1.20G in the circle test, so they arenāt that bad.
And it shows in the rankings, while the very top is mainly slicks, me, Norman and Leo were running sports and we all got top10.
So while slicks still seem like the way to go, the increased wear might change things around a bit.
@Dobble: The two things that occur to me are, first, tyre camber and compound affect tyre wear (more negative camber = more wear, sport compound lasts longer than semi-slick [edit: and is cheaper to start with]), and second, as strop said, youāll want to take into account the fifteen to twenty kilos of fuel that the car will be carrying at the start. (Donāt be fooled by the official fuel-economy estimate - BROBOT calculates fuel consumption directly from instantaneous throttle input and the engine performance graph, so low-end economy will have approximately zero effect on fuel burned during the race.)
On which note: Der Bayer, how exactly is fuel weight added? Is it just added directly to the center of gravity? Does it displace the ride height downward, with all the drivability effects thereof?
I opted for an ultra light fuel efficent car, i am hoping to be pushing close to the top 5, but i actually have a sneaking feeling i may go south in the later part of the race.
Yeah, the most important bit for fuel economy is the efficiency of the engine itself.
Still, since most people are probably running somewhat similar transmission setups, the L/100Km figures are still great for comparison purposes.