One, no OHV. Two, un-american bodies. Sorry 
Edit, found out this means push rod:
((Do you mean direct acting OHC or overhead cam? A little fuzzy about whatās what here, and would like to see what is possible as well 
))
Got a 3L V8 OHV down to 2.15.25 with a turbo on it, but not anything close to ecofriendly. 384hp, 1138,2 g/kWh of fuel so about 9-10 laps of automation before empty.
Deitys:
Turbo-Thor
Octane-Odin
The four Aero-Aesir
Braking-Baldur
and
Sleipnir, the steed of speed!
1 Like
Like with the dedicated Hockenheim race, OHV is not competitive with the weight formula.
Sure OHV is cheap but I doubt you can put enough quality back into the engine to overcome the penalty you suffer of higher car weight, economy and low power.
In any case, I am not sure the turbos are working right in the bot. The cars hardly seem to suffer any of the weight affects compared to NA.
240 kph is a bit slow. Might work on a rather windy track like ATT but you should check out Hockenheim. If it does 2:25 Iād be surprised.
Howās it going with that 2:08 time?
240 kph is a bit slow. Might work on a rather windy track like ATT but you should check out Hockenheim. If it does 2:25 Iād be surprised.
2:24.45
Edit*
And I just noticed the suspension is all messed up from the last time I loaded it. Duno why. After re-optimizing it broke 2:23 on Hockenheim.
My friend, we all know that there is only one Deity of Turboās, and that is Garrett, master of spooling
Not so good, stuck at 13k total cost and almost nowhere to remove quality without significantly reducing engine reliability. I need to mess with it more but been very busy. Anyone else notice that body panel quality does not change the weight or cost of the car? Bug? I think I played with a few other quality sliders as well with no change reflected in the upload tool.
I noticed a few times that it takes a while before the tool actually updates as im sure body and fixture quality does affect the cost.
I might try, now that youāve mentioned it, but currently running a turboād 3.0L SOHC V8 arrangement with 3v per cylinder.
@Puffster : Yes, OHV is pushrod, not overhead cam (OHC) of any configuration.
@findRED19 : Mine is NA. I have a DOHC version on same block, however. It only gains about 2 seconds and costs almost 50% more than the OHV engine, which eats everything else up. I will try with a smaller block, perhaps?
My MR is doing 2:11 with -0.9 camber, and it doesnāt improve if i move camber, and no problem staying under the 10k mark, dropping the engine size might help you guys
okay. i may need that brc tuning video againā¦ where can i find it again?
Sorry if this has been asked before, but in the BRC tool there is Q, R1, R2 and R3. I quess Q is qualification, but what is R2 and R3? Is that strategy for the second track (Diepholz) and third track (Norisring)?
Where do you think I got the idea to run -3 camber from!
I spent ages watching Killrobs videos (some of them were actually about the BRC) got my settings down right and then put 215ās on the front instead of 165ās and found 2 seconds a lap!
But many valid points are made, I spent all of last night thinking about suspension tuning instead of sleeping and I want to run less than -0.1 before Iām happy with the car.
Also- Killrobās BRC Tuning Videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b82c9w0WMa0 - 1966
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAey7RSjym0 - 1955
1 Like
Iām still losing in the order of 1.2s per flying lap on my NA compared to the standing start laps ingame. The results more or less correspond with what I see when I upgrade the infotainment system to luxury (which doesnāt quite add up to a full tank but doesnāt alter your other parameters as much as interior does). It should be said that I can reduce the in-game losses with the luxury interior by retuning my brakes, suspension etc.
Ultimately, if the difference between the ingame and sim times is the same/proportional for everybody then the magnitude of the difference (in seconds) is inconsequential.
But if turbo cars are seeing smaller losses, then that would invalidate the standing start laps ingame as a means of gauging oneās own design options (and the viability of NA/turbo engines as a whole) which would be real bad. Iāve only run NA cars, so I donāt have any grounds for comparison.
Iām going to be absolutely swamped next week so I wonāt enter the next test. But you guys better not make your cars faster than mine, you hear? I think I might still have one weird trick I could try to make up some time but thatād take a significant amount of redoing.
I submitted a NA car this round, so will be interesting to compare difference to that of the turbos.
Last round the turbo car did ATT in 2.09.85 and best lap was 2.10.35, so a 0.5 lost in difference.
This rounds testcar does ATT in 2.11.00, results on Tuesday, Iām stoked 
Wouldnāt the difference in a flying lap depend on power? the more power you have the less effect the extra weight has on performance, this might explain the difference between NA/turbo
not that simple. well maybe it is, but not the way youāre thinking
itās just the difference of how long does it take to get up to speed? which we can actually, roughly gauge.
but thereās the fuel tank weight calculation, which results in a bit of a wild card when combined.
also, not taking account the little, miniscule amount time lost during the first starting lap by the small amount of tire wear.
then road/rain condition, which confuses things even further.
in the end, this is why we need testing phases 
I found a problem with the BRC Tool @Der_Bayer. When using 2 monitors the BRC Tool will stop working after about 5-10 seconds after opening it, but it works fine with 2 monitors while Fraps is running.
Just tried mine with Fraps off, made no difference, also running dual screen
Donāt want to hurry anything just curious is there any info on that?
Also will this happen?
EDIT: When calculating loss because tyre wear, do you take in only the worst wear or the average of front and rear?