It does make a difference, but not even so much that it can change a car from bad to acceptable. For the given example the gearing or aero adjustment itself would affects the car way more than giving it an extra one or two points in quality.
But all this I am only assuming that the test drive in BeamNG is the main crux of the challenge.
Given out of principle I’m trying to generate a comprehensive ruleset, I’ll probably be allowing people to focus on different things by trying to review cars across different metrics just like some motor magazine shootouts. There’s best outright performance, best bang for buck, best all rounder (although I’m iffy on relying too much on the Automation stats like comfort especially) and potentially others. So while my testing focus is seeing how the Beam performance stacks up to the Automation figures, I figured why not get into the spirit of things?
2 Likes
In that case Techpool rule make sense.
Another thing I’d like to suggest is a ban on invisible aero device. If making sure the car make sense is a priority then banning people from putting massive invisible wang on the bonnet in order to generate massive downforce that doesn’t make sense would be good. Perhaps a limit on amount of aero device as well?
As an example, aluminum chassis of any kind (monocoques and semi-space frames included) were very rare in the 1990s (the most notable sports car/supercar applications from that decade being the Honda/Acura NSX, Jaguar XJ220, Lotus Elise S1, and Ferrari 360 Modena, although all of those were mid-engined and therefore outside the scope of this challenge), but they became more and more common from 2000 onwards.
These limits make perfect sense, especially when combined with this rule:
So in theory, you could use +5 techpool everywhere (as per the default settings) without being penalized for overusing techpool overall or in any given area.
And as for this:
I find this limit to be sufficiently generous to allow for a very diverse field of entrants across all three decades, but when combined with the penalty system for overusing techpool in a particular area, it prevents entries from being too technologically advanced for their time.
The most sensible solution would be to impose a maximum of one lip fixture each on both the front and rear, and a maximum of one spoiler/wing fixture on the rear only - with the additional stipulation that all functional aero fixtures must be visible (i.e. for each and every such fixture used, do not hide them by setting the material for every slot to transparent).
I believe that aero in beam is now fixed to the graph, such that fixture size no longer matters. I’ll double check this to be sure. If that’s the case I’ll go back to the rule I suggested at the start, which was a maximum of 1 wing OR spoiler plus 2 lips.
And if that’s also the case then I think I wouldn’t have to really require that they be visible, though again in the spirit of things, it makes more sense if they were because it’s not like we’re using advanced underbody technology tunnel effect in this car it’s not an Aston Martin Valkyrie 
One of the things i’ve noticed when doing some testing for some potential challenges is that techpool actually makes tires worse in beam. the difference in 0 techpool and +15 is about 1.5 seconds in favour of the 0 techpool ones, strangely enough. This was medium tires but it’s something to keep in mind.
And regarding Aero-fixtures… As long as they are visible and not over the top (racecar type downforce, ie 200+ kgs combined front and rear downforce or more) i don’t see the reason to regulate them, rather regulate the amount of downforce created, as they can give the car a more (or less) aggressive look and feel.
There is a budget, and techpool points reduces costs a by a ton
Yep, I did some testing before and absolutely noticed this also across other compounds. I had a speculation it was due to the rigidity of the wheel mesh and the more rigid it is, the worse the contact patch. When I used 15+ in particularly high powered cars it was like driving on glass.
That’s why the techpool on the wheel tab is strictly set to 0.
I suppose so, but I wanted to allow people to select the variation themselves instead of cheesing the downforce. With a limited number of fixtures that simulates the limited aero efficiency available as one then has to choose the balance between drag and reducing lift.
So does that mean that both techpool and quality on the wheel/tire tab must be set to 0? If so, I’ll tweak my test mule accordingly to account for this.
And indeed I did just that - after further tuning (mainly by fitting smaller wheels/tires), it now weighs 1480kg and costs exactly $25k, thus rendering it exempt from cost penalties for its era.
Congrats Strop! This sounds like a good one 
I’ll definitely be joining!
3 Likes
lemme get back to you on that one specifically because my sandbox set itself to +5 everywhere, but I suspect it’s just the quality that needs to be kept at 0.
The penalties that any entry using any of these components will incur should make sense, given that all of them reduce production efficiency to some extent.
But what about fiberglass or fully aluminum body panels? Will either (or both) of those also incur a penalty, and if so, by how much?
oh yeah I forgot about those. Will address in the next update.
When I have time I’ll also show people an example of the judging process as a guide and hopefully we’ll eventually be ready to begin submissions! (in reality this will probably take another fortnight)
One thing that hasn’t been mentioned here (until now) is the requirement for a naming scheme. I’m suggesting “FM4 - (your user name) - (decade)” as the required model and family name, with the “decade” being one of three options: 90s (1990-1999), 00s (2000-2009) or 10s (2010-2020).
Update: progress is slow because I am currently building my template cars for each decade. I’m, uh, one and a half cars through 3. Also because I tracked my Civic today but I’ll talk about that elsewhere.
In short you will be going up against generally faithful replicas of 1) a 1997 Mazda RX-7 Spirit R (but with a 1.3L 3cyl instead of a rotary, though I took care to match the weight and the power output as much as possible), 2) a 2002 Honda S2000 AP1 3) I’m not sure yet. A Nissan 400Z is too late but is pretty emblematic of what this class has become. How do people feel about an A90 Supra?
At any rate I will then confirm the rules and then hopefully sometime in the next couple weeks finally ready to accept submissions.
2 Likes
An A90 Supra would be representative of the newest category for the type of car that’s the focus of this challenge, even though it didn’t receive a manual gearbox option until a few years into its life. Ditto for the new (400)Z, which is too new in real life (it debuted in 2021) but would still fit into the newest group performance-wise.
After a couple of frantic weeks of trying to wrap up my work, turns out that I thought I was flying to Japan a day earlier than I was, so that gives me just enough time I need to finalise the rules and open entries!
Final Ruleset
Mandatory Rules
- Engine Tech Pool Total: 30 points
- Car Tech Pool Total: 45 points
- Model year 1990-2020 inclusive
- Body type: sedan (4 door) or coupe (2 door). Convertible is allowed.
- Engine position: Front
- Do not use motorsport/race car bodies, or novelty bodies like golf-carts, lawn-mowers etc. (as the former may suffer significant damage when driving the street track, and the latter are more often than not undriveable in Beam)
- Panel material: no full or partial CF
- Chassis Type: no ladder or light truck monocoque
- Chassis Material: again no CF
- Engine Placement: Front Longitudinal only
- Suspension: no solid axle in the front, no pushrod anywhere
- Engine design: has to be stress free, run on unleaded 91-95 and have a 3-way cat. No tubular race exhaust or race intake manifold. Max loudness 60.
- Aerodynamic fixtures: a maximum of 1 wing/1 spoiler AND 2 lips. The wing/spoiler must be placed on the rear of the vehicle
- Drive Type: Longitudinal RWD (you get the idea by now)
- Differentials: no manual or auto Locker Diffs
- Tyre Type: Radial
- Tyre Choice: Sports Compound
- Tyre Profile: an absolute minimum of 35 (my intuition is that handling may get iffy if too low)
- Tyre Quality: MUST BE 0 WITH 0 TECH POOL
- Brakes: set the pad to exactly 70. They must also have 0 fade in Automation. The reason for the exact pad figure is that it will require you to build in sufficient brake cooling whether by size of disc or ventilation such that I don’t cannon off the end of Conrod straight.
- Undertray: no Offroad Skidtray or Race Diffuser
- Active Aero: forbidden, because it isn’t implemented in the exporter
- Downforce: rear downforce must be at least equal to or greater than front downforce. Lift is fine, that’s more the norm for most of these vehicles until more recently
- Seats: At least 2 in front row. A rear row is optional if available.
- Interior: no Basic
- Entertainment: must have a period-appropriate device equipped
- Traction Aids: 90s, free choice. 00s, at least ABS. 10s, at least ABS and TCS (which I will be turning off anyway lol but this is for realism)
- Springs: standard or progressive ONLY (the rest don’t operate in Beam)
- Dampers: no adaptive or semi-active
- Sway bars: no off-road or active
Recommendations
- Wheelbase: 2.3-2.75m
- Panel Material: full Aluminium will incur a small penalty
- Chassis Type: space frame and semi-space frame will incur a penalty
- Chassis Material: Glued aluminium will incur a penalty
- Engine ET: I recommend no more than 100
- Power output: 180-450hp across ALL decades
- Tyre width: up to a maximum of
Tyre width (mm) = vehicle mass (kg)/6 + (2020 - model year)/2 + 25 - Staggered widths are allowed, staggered diameter also allowed where difference between front and rear is a maximum of 1 inch
- Downforce: no more than 10kg@200km/h on the front, and no more than 50kg@200km/h at the rear
- Suspension tuning: it is recommended to tune for between drivability and sportiness, leaning towards drivability. I will not penalise for the rates as this will be part of the tuning contest
- Total weight of car: 90s: 950-1500kg 00s: 1000-1550kg 10s: 1050-1600kg
- Power to weight ratio: between 180-360hp:metric ton
- Approximate cost: between 90s: 15000-25000, 00s: 18000-30000, 10s: 21000-35000
Penalties
- Tech point excess for either engine or car: cumulative sum penalty points i.e. 1 over = 1 point, 2 over = 3 points, 3 over = 6 points, 4 over = 10 points and so on
- For every cm above or below the wheelbase limits: 1 penalty point
- full Aluminium panels: 2 penalty points
- Semi-space frame: 5 penalty points
- Space frame: 10 penalty points
- Glued aluminium: 10 penalty points
- Solid axle rear suspension: 1 penalty point
- Engine ET: for each ET above 100: 1 penalty point
- Power output: for each 2hp above/below the range: 1 penalty point
- Tyre width for each mm above the recommendation as given by the formula: 1 penalty point
- Total weight of car: for each 5kg outside the range: 1 penalty point
- Power to weight ratio: for every 5hp:metric ton outside the range: 1 penalty point
- Downforce: for every kg front or rear over the recommended limit: 1 penalty point
- Approximate cost: for each 100 dollars above budget: 1 penalty point
Naming:
Name your submission in the following format. Do not deviate from this scheme or I’ll probably lose your entry!
Model:
FM4 -
your username
Trim:
The name of your car
You can name the engine whatever you want.
Competition housekeeping:
- I will not be judging aesthetics, aside from requiring that it has sufficient fixtures to look like a real production car, because I’m going to put them in a video. I might making comments about general appearance. But I urge people to, if they haven’t already made it, go easy on the interior because…
- I will be matching the weight distribution and weight of the cars in Beam as they appear in Automation. However I can only reduce the node weight in Beam so much (by about 9% tops) before the model falls to pieces.
- The window for submission is 19th June or whenever I’ve resolved final objections to the above ruleset, to 11:59pm the 2nd of July, GMT+10.
- You may submit up to ONE vehicle to each decade category i.e. a maximum total of 3
- You must submit these entries to my DMs on this forum, or I’ll lose your entry
- In your DM, it would be good for flavour if you could include a brief description (up to 100 words) of your vehicle and company lore, including nominating what car in real life yours is based on/would rival, but this is optional.
- If a car breaks a mandatory rule, it will be insta-
and there will be no resubmissions due to time constraints on my end. - After assessing my timetable, if I receive more than eight entries in each decade, I will cull their numbers down, first by the highest number of penalty points accrued on that vehicle, then by how far their performance parameters deviate from the recommended range.
Judging
The courses I will drive the cars on will be: West Coast USA Street Course 1, Mountain Course, and Bathurst - Mount Panorama. I’m just going to set it to open session and once I’m confident I’m consistently maxing out the performance I’ll record the best time. While I’m not really looking to crown winners and boo losers here, there are a few ways to rank the vehicle so I will be rating them on a number of metrics.
- Outright pace
- Time versus a performance index which will be based on a product of power to weight ratio and outright power
- Bang for buck: pace vs the nominated price of the vehicle, which isn’t something you should take too seriously if your vehicle is not purely focused on a sporting drive
- Driving factors: speed vs control vs fun
I will have benchmark cars of my own, not optimised but rather 3 different vehicles that represented each decade in different ways. They will be:
- 1997 Mazda RX-7 Spirit R (with a 1.3L 3cyl instead of a 13B rotary): 278bhp, 1275kg
- 2002 Honda S2000 AP1: 247bhp, 1274kg
- 2020 Toyota Supra A90/J29 DB02: 389bhp, ~1520kg (haven’t worked this out fully yet)
That’s all I can think of for now. I’ll check feedback during my stopover in Singapore, and see if I can get things kicked off.
9 Likes
Exactly as I expected - I tweaked my test mules with this in mind. Then again, increasing the tech pool for wheels and tires would make them more difficult to drive in Beam, as you have previously stated.
I’d also recommend that entrants included such flavor text in the lore post for their submissions on this thread, although this too would be optional.
I’m sure that the rear row of seats, if fitted to a compatible body, does not have to be full-sized - a +2 or +3 arrangement is allowed.
In other words, if you make a fully detailed interior, don’t make it too complex (by putting too many different fixtures in it).
An example of a penalty-free techpool distribution for the latter would be 5 points in all areas except wheels/tires (which must have 0 quality and tech pool as stated above).
Currently transiting through Changi airport so quick reply:
I mean you can write whatever you want if you’re posting your entry info to this thread, but I’ll only quote what’s sent to me in DMs.
I wanted to use one of my mule cars to show you all an example of how I intend to format it hut alas, I did not have the time. Maybe when I get back.
Should the decade be incorporated into the model name somehow?
Glad the rules didn’t change much. Had a chance to build some stuff when this came up, hopefully will find time to give them a once-over before the deadline.