Ah! My apologies - I will edit my review post and do my best to remember for the future.
(The story about your girlfriend is adorable. 
)
Edit: I should add: your ability to make a similar amount of power much cheaper by a small increase in displacement is also very helpful to see - I think I will see about playing with that kind of approach more in future cost-restricted builds.
Jeeezes, this thread already has over 600 posts, and the races havenāt even started.
Letās go for 1k! 
Iām waiting that my internet connection is back to start the race streaming. It is 2 weeks now that Iām internetless.
Iām so, so sorry. Thatās terrible. 
The race videos are all done already and I know who the champion is 
Does that mean betting is closed? 
Looking forward to see how well my barge did on Monza. Hope I got some point on any of the tracks.
Mmmmuh - my plan to review all the cars to get a sense of the entire field was clearly overambitious. Iām going to restrict myself to specific questions Iām interested in and can answer from the .lua files, like the count of valvetrain types - pushrod, direct-acting OHC, SOHC (2,3,4v), and DOHC (2,4,5v) - in each engine block type.
Meanwhile, hereās (probably) my last car review before I update my game to the new build: pHantaās.
(A caveat: my game threw a āThis was saved in an earlier editionā message, so any discrepancies here may be due to that.)
This is another of the small coupes like my own, but much simpler in style. I find the front headlights a little crosseyed and the blue paint a bit too vibrant, but I like the narrow stripey taillights - itās not my favorite looking car, but thereās nothing to be offended by here.
Going through the mechanics: the Model tabs are all at +0 quality, with the standard choices (incl. hand made aluminium body panels). The engine is a 1.8L flatplane V8, approximately square, DOHC 5v, cast with forged heads; thereās a +3 quality on the bottom end that brings up the reliability and smoothness a bit. On top, the cam profile is actually quite tame for cars in this competition at 54, reflecting the relatively large displacement for the power requirements; a +4 here keeps valve lift to a minimum.
In the fuel system, performance intakes feed twin 4-barrel carbs, running at a 14.0:1 fuel mixture; a 72 ignition timing is within the normal range, but in the pure horsepower tradeoff between timing and compression (10.4, here) for peak horsepower, my experiments find a marginally better performance either lower (~60) or much higher (~90+). That said, I havenāt played with this engine and the moderate timing here does keep responsiveness reasonable at 26.5. Wrapping up this tab, the redline is 7500 (lowish, here) and +3 quality gives the car a little more reliability and economy at the same octane.
On the output side, long tubular headers (the lightest tubular headers) feed into a single 2.00" exhaust, no mufflers. Like AshleyBlack, pHanta has made the choice (which shouldnāt be surprising, but in this competition somehow is) of properly-sized pipes.
Overall, the engine is middling priced at 83.1 production units and $768.83.
Going on to the trim, the car has an automatic locker differential but is nevertheless geared very tall to keep things in the power band. This costs a tenth on the 0-100 time (7.0 is easy to get with optimal gearing), but is probably better for race purposes. +7 quality is on the low end of typical, but typical. The car is running on semi-slicks, 175 mm on 13" rims, with 40 mm of offset front and back.
On the brake front, the car is impressively solid: +9 quality brings the stopping distance down to 41.0 m, and pHanta manages a brake fade of only -3.6%! Contributing to this is maxed out brake cooling, with some surplus engine cooling airflow to get it higher still. Aero quality is only a +1, however, possibly in recognition that the body drag of this particular car is too extreme to solve here. It does make for a sub-200 kph top speed, however, which will cost on the high-speed circuits.
Inside, the car is fitted with the usual -15 everywhere: Basic seats, nonexistent entertainment, and Standard safety package.
Springs sit at a +0 quality, progressive, with fairly tame settings (e.g. -1.8 and -2.0 degrees camber) and a low ride height - just 176.1 mm. The car has no bottom out, corners moderately flat at 2.5 degrees roll, and the yaw rate curve sits not too far from the ideal zero-understeer line. 1.17 g in the small circle is middling, but 1.13 g in the large is quite good. In-game track times are 2:42.56 on the Automation Test Track and 2:21.82 on Brands Hatch Indy (1:08.17 on the flying lap).
Anything happening? ETA?
I really hope to have back internet in a couple of days. Iām very sorry about it (missing internet since 18 June).
I will not blame anyone if you want the streaming without me.
Isā¦ isā¦
Is it possible? Is that the sound of engines roaring on some test track?
YOU ARE GOD DAMN RIGHT!
The first Training Session of 1955 started nowā¦ and some idiot (who is me) forgot to turn on the radio for music.
holy crap itās up!
Wait, thereās no more resubmitting, right? So is this a practice run? Not a qualifying run? I canāt remember the race format xD
I think, among other things, that Iāve been too aggressive with my wheel camber. I may be āsecondā on this grid in terms of fastest lap times, but that loss of grip is making my lap times degrade very quickly.
Mmm - Iām looking at the last-lap times, and it looks like you might be right, strop. Third through sixth have faster final lap times, are pretty close on fastest lap times, and burn less fuel.
That said, your slowest lap is three seconds faster than my fastest.
Odd, even though my car is a massive gas gussler, the first full lap is the fastest? Steady decline after that.
I am going to do sooo bad in '65 because I will be entering the LHE Com Star.
Well again I do really well on fuel economy, not much else though
Hmmmā¦ Iām not the biggest gussler, both 07CobaltGirl and Pyrlix, , uses more fuel.
Pyrlix? More than 30 hp less, 165 kg lighter and 703cc smaller. What is going on?
Okay - Iāll want to look at how well this bears up in the race, too, but I think my gut instinct is pretty closely borne out: race fuel consumption is proportional to full-throttle fuel consumption at max power (i.e. economy/power at the max power RPMs times max power).
That said, thereās more work to be done to produce a useable equation for other fan competitions, and whatever the equation is, itās going to be track-dependent. (Green Hell has more fuel consumption than other tracks, frex.) But even as rough as this is, a 0.9108 correlation is much, much better than the 0.6483 correlation to nominal fuel economy.
(Edit: For the record, the units on the Y-axis here are g/hr. X-axis is kg.)
My tire wear is as expected after reducing camber and switching to sportsā¦ however I should have stayed on slicks with how slow my car is. Not looking good for this BRC
Iāll put my hope on getting at least some points at Monza and SĆ¼dschleife. The other three, not a f-ing chance. 
