I made a test mule soon after the rule set was announced, under the assumption that the ET rule wouldn’t be in place at all (or at least significantly relaxed, due to how techpool affects it) and the tire width rule was a recommendation, not a hard limit. All in all, it seems pretty competitive - 400 bhp from a 5.0L NA V8 in a $42k car from 1995 would have been a lot of bang for your buck.
I also have a few more rule suggestions:
Tire widths must not be divisible by 10 (i.e. the last digit must be a 5) - this will prevent the use of TRX/race car tire sizes.
Fuel types should be limited to 91 RON, 95 RON or 98 RON unleaded only, and a 3-way catalytic converter of some sort should be mandatory - we’re building modern stuff here, after all.
When you say 42k car, do you mean total costs or the Automation generated “suggested sale price”?
I do want a range but the feedback I’m getting has me thinking that a lot of people are trying to generate at least 50% over the output I was expecting to deal with again. This may actually inspire me to come up with a balancing “performance index” kinda thing to balance times against.
There’s gonna be lots of sliding scales to this lol
First of all, congrats for the upcoming little strop.
I’ve already made a car. It’ll be fine tune further after the rule is set in stone. I’ve tested it in BeamNG and it’s already driving so well that I’ve decided I’ll not be submitting something else.
This is the 1993 AG (Albert’s Garage) Type C8.
This car is what happened when a 1960’s little British sports car got so popular that they keep on making it for too long. Even after it went out of production the tooling for bodies were kept to make replacement parts, which by the 90’s even a whole new shell was available.
Due to the success of a certain Japanese roadster that’s totally not a Miat. They wanted something that can competes so they went on to develop a completely new mid-engine roadster. The only trouble is, they started development afterThe Miat already became a success. The new car would be at least 4 years away. They needed a stop gap. This is that stop gap.
1960’s chassis technology utilising leaf spring live axle, combined with venerable OHV V8 that turn petrol into a lot of noise. It even got rear drum brakes for that authentic afterthought stopgap experience. No ABS as well, but if you would absolutely prefer it to have one I can change that.
To be frank, I tried this idea only to see how good a leaf spring live rear axle shitbox can drive so I created an MG RV8 inspired mule, turns out it drives pretty damn good so I’ll go with it. Another mule I made was a Cappuccino which I ultimately decided against mainly because you recommend 2.3-2.7m wheelbase.
One thing I’m vary of is that when exported the weight distribution seems to be quite off. 49/51 in Automation but 54/46 in BeamNG. In my testing it drives well but I have no idea how to adjust weight distribution in BeamNG so the feedback on my end might not be accurate. Wondering if you have some sort of solution? Maybe a small report from you that the car’s not completely messed up with proper weight distribution?
Can you test the car with the accurate weight distribution by moving the engine in the Vehicle Advanced Tuning options section? That way you’d be able to tell yourself.
I already tried moving the engine in advanced setting (moving back by 10 points) and the weight distribution doesn’t change in BeamNG. But I could maybe doing something wrong?
Yeah I reckon these will be in, though I am a little hesitant on the tyre size rule because I am going to be using a formula to restrict tyre sizes after all and I don’t want people to have to make major engineering changes that would be contrived just because they need an extra 10mm of tyre. I’ll think on that.
If ET limits are indeed implemented this time around, even though I have found them unnecessary in the techpool era, they should be increased considerably, to account for the more advanced tech found in later eras. However, on the off-chance that the ET limits remain as-is (and are turned into hard limits, to boot), I made a second test mule with such strict limits in mind, albeit using the same type of engine (a big naturally aspirated V8, this time pushrod instead of DOHC) and body set as the first.
Depending on where it’s applied (and by how much), techpool doesn’t just affect engineering time and production units, but also material costs and overall approximate costs. As such, it may not be a good idea to impose upper limits on any of those this time around.
As for my “plan B” test mule, its engine makes 300 bhp (100 fewer than that of my first test mule), but it’s placed in a car that’s five years older, weighs just 1300kg (130kg fewer than the previous mule) and comes in at a decidedly lower price (~$28k AMU as shown in the overview tab, compared to $42k AMU - a $14k AMU cost saving). Other differences include regular alloy wheels, a double-wishbone rear suspension and a corrosion-resistant steel chassis with partial aluminum panels (instead of forged magnesium wheels, a 6-speed manual gearbox, multilink rear end, and treated steel panels on an AHS steel chassis). Obviously, its stats are inferior, but I’ll go with it if the ET rules are left as they are in addition to being strictly enforced hard limits.
One more thing: My first test mule had a rear tire width of 285mm (20mm more than the recommended maximum tire width for something of its model year and mass, as determined by the formula above); by comparison, my second test mule runs 245mm rear tires - right on the suggested upper limit for a contemporary car with a 1300kg curb weight. If the tire width rules are ultimately hard limits set in stone (which seems unlikely) instead of being a recommendation, then my first test mule won’t be eligible, but my second one will be. In any case, if I choose to enter FM4, I will need to refine my entry before I have the confidence to submit it.
In the meantime, I’ll be watching and waiting with interest until the rules are finalized and the submission window is opened.
My main priority is to see how vehicles perform over a certain spread of power and weight, controlling for tyre width to keep it within a certain range
Therefore I will not be overly concerned with the price or luxury specification (i.e. non-performance trimmings) of the vehicle.
There will be a performance index of sorts, based on a composite of power and power:weight ratio, which will be matched against the vehicle’s times across the 3 tracks. The times will be scored and weighted depending on percentage difference of average speed from the median.
I think that I shall allow any entrant to submit up to three entries, one for each decade i.e. 1990-1999, 2000-2009. and 2010-2020 inclusive.
In the event that I have more than 10 cars in any one category, I am considering the very controversial step of culling vehicles based on distance from the target brief. There will be recommendations on multiple criteria that broadly reflect the segment i.e. if you submit a high-powered luxury barge, or an ultra track-focused machine with no radio, and it happens to be in a category where the other 10 entries more or less fall in the sport-coupe category, it’ll get cut. Other things that will get an entry cut aside from instabin factors are a stupid poor fuel economy, a stupidly uncomfortable or undriveable suspension tune, being far too expensive, having an un-streetable torque curve, you get the idea.
That’s what I’m mulling over presently. I hope to have a second draft ruleset out to you in a few days, I spent most of today mastering driving stick in high heels
This makes perfect sense given that the front-engined/rear-drive sports car market as a whole underwent extensive changes from each decade to the next - allowing each entrant to submit at most one entry per decade helps account for this.
Quick question: I know you’re revising the ruleset already, but when you spoke of engine techpool you wrote for 5 points total with no more than 2 in any one area, but then you wrote about possibly subtracting techpool points so that you could add to other areas. But, with only 5 techpool points allowed there would be no techpool points to subtract from anywhere. Did you mean 5 EXTRA techhpool points OVER the default amount of +5 (for all categories)? Or is it a base of +0 for all categories and 5 is all you get to play with?
Alright after further feedback and discussion I’m putting together:
Second Draft: Proposed Ruleset
I am now breaking this into a few segments. The first are mandatory rules, if these are not followed the entry will be insta . Then the second tier are the recommendations. Failure to adhere to these will not disqualify your entry, but you will be awarded a certain number of penalty points depending on the violation. Depending on the number of entries in each segment, I will, at my discretion, discard any number of entries with the most penalty points. If an entry is so far an outlier that it will not meaningfully help my dataset, I reserve the right to also discard the entry.
Mandatory Rules
Model year 1990-2020 inclusive
Body type: coupe (must have 2 doors only). 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 CF
Chassis Type: no light truck monocoque
Chassis Material: again no CF
Engine Placement: Front Longitudinal only
Suspension: no solid axle (this will generally mandate an inappropriate suspension ride height. No pushrod, as I’m not even sure this functions properly in Beam
Engine design: has to be stress free, run on unleaded 91-95 and have a cat. No tubular race exhaust or race intake manifold. Max loudness 60.
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
Brakes: set the pad to 75 or greater. I acknowledge many production cars do not come factory with ceramic pads etc. but the premise here is trackday and hard driving, the pads shall be upgraded to match because the last thing I want is for my entire test to be hampered by my brakes fading and I 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
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
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 110 (honestly I can crank out a really good bi-turbo V8 for under 100 ET and such an engine already lies outside the scope of this comp)
Power output: 200-450hp 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, however staggered diameter may not be. Please discuss.
Brake fade: it is strongly recommended to achieve 0% sport in Automation
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 200-350hp:metric ton
Approximate cost: between 90s: 15000-25000, 00s: 18000-30000, 10s: 21000-35000
Penalties
For every cm above or below the wheelbase: 1 penalty point
Semi-space frame: 5 penalty points
Space frame: 10 penalty points
Glued aluminium: 10 penalty points
Engine ET: for each ET above 110: 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
Approximate cost: for each 100 dollars above budget: 1 penalty point
Notes:
I have dispensed with the tech pool rules. I am allowing for people to spend more on budget with fancier interiors etc. if they like. After all I’m not trying to get you to minmax the actual performance here, I just want a range of stuff so the bang for buck matters less literally.
I am not certain of the balance of the penalty points. You may say that some of it is redundant and overlaps, which is true but that just goes to show just how keen I am for you to stay mostly within those rules and to discourage significant outliers.
If we are getting close to an agreement on these rules I’ll go on to discuss judgement!
Ok so no techpool to spend, but is it +0 +2? the default +5? all round? The penalties seem fine, things like caterhams will get penalised and your average sports car won’t.
Regarding your revised rule set, I have a few more inquiries:
Does this mean that we can’t use a solid axle on the front or the rear? Especially since American pony cars (except for the 1999-2003 Ford Mustang Cobra, Cobra R and “Terminator” Cobra) still had solid rear axles as standard until the 2008 Dodge Challenger and 2009 Chevrolet Camaro (both of which were built on sedan platforms).
I propose that the catalytic converter must be a 3-way unit of some sort (either normal or high-flow), since the only vehicles allowed are those from 1990 onwards.
What about flow-optimized and sport undertrays? Can we use either of those?
What exactly is meant by this? For example, a car from the 1990s must have a cassette or CD player fitted.
At any rate, no matter the tech pool limit, we’ll need to use (and choose) it wisely.
no limit, as in, you can set it to whatever you like (except for on tyres). I may implement a trim ET by decade if this looks like it’s going to get abused because I know that the approximate cost measure can be subjected to considerable abuse.
Again though, I’m not sure if there’s much to be gained by this. I’m opening it up purely because a lot of the choices do not have a direct correlation to Beam export performance.
I wanted to be firm on this because I’m not really aiming at the pony car segment. However this would cut out an entire sector of the world, so I suppose I could let them in but with solid rear axle only, which would incur a bit of a penalty.
Fair, I’ll stipulate 3 way only
Allowed unless there’s good reason for me not to
That’s right. I would have listed but I was too lazy to open Automation to look lol
. Then the second tier are the recommendations. Failure to adhere to these will not disqualify your entry, but you will be awarded a certain number of penalty points depending on the violation. Depending on the number of entries in each segment, I will, at my discretion, discard any number of entries with the most penalty points. If an entry is so far an outlier that it will not meaningfully help my dataset, I reserve the right to also discard the entry.