[quote=“koolkei”]^wut… premium interior? radios? WUT O_O is that a race car or a saloon?
are you underweight even using ladder chassis? are you using iron block engines?[/quote]
It was a van. And I built it purely as a joke to relieve the stress from tuning my other cars. I only used it because it somehow ran a 2:28.6. Not exactly competitive, but at that point, I was already out of fucks to give.
I’ve spent half the time on my second car, and its already multiple seconds faster, is more reliable, has less wheel spin, and uses 20% less fuel. (the catch is that it’s super ugly) But This might just be competitive.
Ah, the curiosity, it is getting me!
It’s a flatnosed turbo.
tried the new RR body. i was surprised that i could get 2:24 with about 2500 more to spare,and only a 4l v8 engine… and 33 drive to 40 sport even WITH oversteer.
but i just couldn’t tune it competitive enough, end up with very low 2:22 
i gave up on catching up the per lap time, and trying to win by strategy.
[quote=“koolkei”]tried the new RR body. i was surprised that i could get 2:24 with about 2500 more to spare,and only a 4l v8 engine… and 33 drive to 40 sport even WITH oversteer.
but i just couldn’t tune it competitive enough, end up with very low 2:22
i gave up on catching up the per lap time, and trying to win by strategy.[/quote]
I tried all 3 available Rear / mid engined bodies, I can’t get them below 2:19:90, and that is with drivability falling below 20 and sportiness above 40. As weight moves farther back they just become undrivable much faster than the increased grip should help drivability.
it’s really curious. how did you even get to such low times?
i still couldn’t fine the right combination to get it even to 2:20.
the weight distribution on that RR body is 28/72 right now.
FIL is back. Faster than ever before.
F.I.L. Krayniy 6200
What secret new technologies does FIL have to get into a car without handles on the doors?
Think about it. It’s the late '70s. Star wars comes out soon. They probably sent satellites into orbit that can open up certain doors on command.
[quote=“koolkei”]it’s really curious. how did you even get to such low times?
i still couldn’t fine the right combination to get it even to 2:20.
the weight distribution on that RR body is 28/72 right now.[/quote]
0 front camber -2.4 rear, softish rear suspension and slightly harder front, current v8 variant of my tuned engines dropped right in and the weight to litters was almost perfect. Hit about 2:21 on all three bodies just setting the most basic settings, tuning suspension, aero, and transmission got them to low 2:20 relatively easily, chasing 10ths of a second got to 2:19:90 but I could not get anything lower without full camber and even then it wasnt enough of a difference to warrant the increased tire wear.
When do entries for tomorrow need to be in, Der Bayer?
[quote=“TheBobWiley”]
[quote=“koolkei”]it’s really curious. how did you even get to such low times?
i still couldn’t fine the right combination to get it even to 2:20.
the weight distribution on that RR body is 28/72 right now.[/quote]
0 front camber -2.4 rear, softish rear suspension and slightly harder front, current v8 variant of my tuned engines dropped right in and the weight to litters was almost perfect. Hit about 2:21 on all three bodies just setting the most basic settings, tuning suspension, aero, and transmission got them to low 2:20 relatively easily, chasing 10ths of a second got to 2:19:90 but I could not get anything lower without full camber and even then it wasnt enough of a difference to warrant the increased tire wear.
When do entries for tomorrow need to be in, Der Bayer?[/quote]
i just sent my car.
Did you get the times from standing start or during practice brc session?
From standing start in the normal game, but that is what everyone on here goes off of when discussing times on the forums since we do not have access to the BROBOT simulation during building. My 2nd car in the first practice was the delorean-esq mid engine body, but had in-game time of 2:22 I believe, I got much better times even from the same body after the first practice but will most likely not be running a mid engine even as 2nd car. So much school work to finish today, I really want to work on my second car tonight. :\
I am going to enter a sub-3-minute Eco Racer car as my second car 
anyone wants to challenge me for “least fuel used”? 
Challenge accepted, the pickup will be replaced! 
Here are my entries for the Hockenheim 1000km, both are rear-engined (and have the same terrible weight balance), both have very narrow front tyres and both look exactly the same.
One has a 3.9 NA V8, the other has a 2.8 Turbo V8. Due to their natures one is called Lime Lollipop and the other is the Widowmaker Turbo.
Nice turbo setup! You’ve got a reasonably wide useable power curve going on there.
[quote=“TheBobWiley”]
0 front camber -2.4 rear, softish rear suspension and slightly harder front, current v8 variant of my tuned engines dropped right in and the weight to litters was almost perfect. Hit about 2:21 on all three bodies just setting the most basic settings, tuning suspension, aero, and transmission got them to low 2:20 relatively easily, chasing 10ths of a second got to 2:19:90 but I could not get anything lower without full camber and even then it wasnt enough of a difference to warrant the increased tire wear.
When do entries for tomorrow need to be in, Der Bayer?[/quote]
for me, i don’t think more than what i’m doing now (-1.7F/R) is going to be reasonable for my tires, because 1.4tons of pure steel
and what is perfect in hp/l for you? i have a 7703cc engine making 726HP, or i have a prototype that makes 468HP from a 4L.
the aero on the car i chose is just too horrible.
i was trying to make a competitive car, but since i can’t get it. this might as well be the more interesting one 
There’s about 30 extra HP in that cc range mate.
500hp from a 4L? that’s a LOT of money going into the engine. either that, or a ridiculous amount of fuel.
