P2 has been claimed by @George. A clean livery and the only car with an aeroscreen make it stand out a bit, but not too much. Whilst it is the slowest on the grid with a 1:32:89, it does make up for it by being the most driveable on the grid, which would make crashing less probable. It also costs $100.000, so dirt cheap like br1ckfield3r’s submission. Being the only car to get over 100dB of sound, you could hear it coming from a bit further away than the others. Thank you for the submission!
2 Likes
And the winner of Formula Alternative is … @sutarttt. The only submission that didn’t use the recomended body. Setting a lap time of 1:32:11 it was definetly quick around the track. Being by far the most sporty entry (123,7) it took the lead of the challenge right then and there. Looks are great but it is extremely expensive ($411.000). So congrats sutarttt for winning Formula Alternative!
2 Likes
Feedback is always welcome to know what I can improve in the future and/or if you would like to see something similar but for other racing categories.
1 Like
The challenge was fun, no complaints from me. I really liked the idea of restricting the fuel flow to have everyone within the same power range while rewarding more efficient engine designs. The one issue I see is that engine efficiency drops off hard with high RPMs, making the fuel flow increase too much for the little extra power you’re getting. Maybe to discourage low RPM high boost engines, there could be a system where for every 100 RPM above 9000 gets you an extra 100 g/min of flow allowance.
As for future challenges, it would be fun to see a similar format but applied to other racing categories.
Thank you very much for hosting and congrats to the winner!
1 Like
Thanks for feedback. In the future I might add ‘penalties’ like extra cost for turbo engines (they have dominated as expected) to help NA engines out. Would love to see you in another challenge!
1 Like