Finishing up testing for today. Just broke the 2:25.00 barrier with 508 bhp.
I have build a turbocar and yes, great success itās faster than my NAā¦ butā¦ sigh ā¦it needs 3 tanks of fuel to finish 20 lapsā¦ not ideal one might say 
Iām now very torn apart. I got this wing that makes my car look like a BMW M1 Procar, but itās actually hurting laptimes 
I know right! Just put aero to 0, no harm thereā¦
Actually there is a difference, even if you are going for 0 degrees. Also this concludes a completely automationed sunday, with the most viable result beingā¦ unsatisfactory.
Ok, seeing peopleās horsepower numbersā¦ how??? Are these like massive 6L V8s? Made a 4l V8 NA and was finally able to see 460 HP, but the power band is awful. Turbo V6 is currently my best engine, but its hard getting much more than 360 HP from it due to size and money limits.
Finally passed the 2:24 mark, but the thing has effectively 0 driveability and gripā¦
Just finished testing today as well. Ran high 2:17s around ATT wth 357 hp. That good?
not really comparable, the race track is a faster and less corner-y track.
my 2:15 on the ATT came out 2:26 on the race track
i just could NOT find turbo setups to be advantageus, brought the NA one down to 2:25, but i cant bring the turbos lower than 2:26,5
Bob, how awful is the powerband? I am running exactly the similar engine setup by the looks of it, but itās pretty good up top, even though Iām running quite a bit less CC
Iām pretty happy with how itās going so far. I know I canāt compare the 2 directly, but, my laptopās being stupid right now, so I canāt download it for myself yet. I just wanted an opinion on something. I have a more conservative suspension setup right now, but because of it, my drivability and sportiness are almost exactly even. And it still handles decently. But, if I use a more aggressive setup at the expense of some drivability, would that be better?
Well, the tracks are completely uncomparable. Hockenheim needs a fine ballance between power and top speed and cornering ability. I dropped 3 seconds off the initial lap time just by fiddling with the aero and the suspension, and it all lost me quite a bit of time on ATT. The initial ATT time was 2:09 though, if thatās what youāre asking, but I do not think thatās a factor. The drivability. Wellā¦ With these seriously unrestricted rules I am guessing most people will have trouble getting their drivability over 10 with track sportiness ranging from 30 and up. The ideal ballance is ādrivability over track sportinessā, but I honestly do not know how to do that.
Also, Bob, I ran 1100 hp and all it did was never put it all to the ground. As in āActually neverā, even at speeds of over 250kph the car was at best at 30-40% throttle, so yeah, power numbers arenāt very informative. Also note that the main limiting factor for everybody this time will be the tires. Even though the width is set at a pretty decent 265 you got 2 problems. 1. Itās nowhere near enough to handle some of the outputs we can muster up and 2. Since the quality of those must be 0, we are stuck with downsizing the rims, leaving less space for brakes, which ruins drivability. I will be running my NA with some 460+hp
The only body I could find that works around this is the muscle car, it has plenty of roof for wide tires and high profile, so you donāt need to limit your brake size, but that thing is ENORMOUS, it would need a collosal engine to pull it and itās weight would get in the way of teh 3rd sector, negating the tire width advantage. If anything Iām running 235 (I think, too many experiments and too lazy to open up automation), and itās pretty much enough traction at speeds over 120, whch suits me just fine.
I figured. My drivability is about 36.5 versus 37 sportiness atm. I purposefully did a conservative engine tune for that reason. Iām definitely not tweaking that too much.
Either itās a brilliant design, or itās not fast enough for Hockenheim. Download that track and start running your car there, then youāll know for sure.
My car achieve 2:20.96 on race track with 4500cc 500hp engine.
P.S. after some tuning up, my car break 2:20 wall.
I guess its not THAT bad, but compared to the near flat power bands I strive for, its very peaky. Current iteration is a reliable 3333 cc V8.
My two cars are entered, will upload pics later in the week
I do not see a problem here. 
The smaller fuel tankās a joke. A brc66 nine stop turns into a '76 14 stopper.
My fastest car is looking at 22 stops!
[quote=āmarcus817ā]My car achieve 2:20.96 on race track with 4500cc 500hp engine.
P.S. after some tuning up, my car break 2:20 wall.[/quote]
Is that a turbo? Because I donāt know how to get there.
Smaller fuel tank? 10 kg/m^2 in 1976 instead of 7 kg/m^2 in 1966 is significantly more.