I'm Bored (a pilot test for the 2nd FITE ME)

strop · 3 April 2019 15:24

The scale doesn’t work very well for cars that are at the ends of the scales if the scale isn’t particularly linear. Since your car has the most power by a margin and is almost the heaviest, the values can come out wonky even if I run a line of best fit. It’s even more wonky because brunator made a car with nearly as much power but also very little traction so it’s skewing my graph hard the other direction.

In reality it only matters that your car was the fastest around the Automation Test Track as it was also the most powerful. Ultimately all the values are saying here is that despite being very heavy it’s very fast which is entirely to be expected. Don’t worry so much about the delta values for the other tracks either: there’s no performing faster than expected if you’re already expected to be the fastest, right?

strop · 5 April 2019 06:18

So apparently I picked up not one but two viruses which explains why I’ve been completely decimated all week ~~and spending too much time designing a car and not enough time reviewing~~. But good news! I didn’t actually slack off. So here is round 4 all at once. I promise I will complete all the drives of round 5 and have the information written before I fly next Monday, but after that actually transcribing the results may take a bit more time depending on access etc.

Without further ado, here is the:

Stage 4: Downhill touge

I’m not going to start by making an Initial D reference, there are already too many of those in my commentary

Mount Glorious is relatively wide, but is also steeper than average, especially in the first half. The transition to the second half is marked by a sharp right hairpin at the bottom of a very steep downhill slope. Pick your braking point wisely! As predicted, this was enough to flag the cars that had some serious braking issues as it promptly melted the brakes and made driving the second half much harder. The second half itself isn’t so much downhill as it is full of blind corners and crests and funny combinations. It punished the cars that had sluggish response and poor side-to-side weight transfer stability. All in all, this track performed as it should have: to pick out and highlight the dynamic niggles in every car. Expect some harsh comments!

FR

Of all the classes of car to be affected by going downhill, FR would be worse-off than FF, but not as badly affected as RR. I’m certainly not of the opinion that Fujiwara drifting down the mountain is at all the fastest way of doing it (and, as astute readers of Initial D would have picked up, while he had a high level of understanding the true relation between grip and slip, his driving style changed a lot over the course of the manga). That probably meant that his early opponents plain sucked. More importantly many of the cars here had open diffs and that really makes taking the corners aggressively with throttle nearly impossible.

JANXOL – 1982 Cyanide Motors 1982 Terrier - S1

Nearly impossible. Some concerns had been raised in previous rounds about an apparent “twitchiness”. In this instance it appears to be something to do with either the rear spring rate or rear sway bars being excessive, plus brakes that are a bit too biased to the rear. On the downhill this serves to make slowing down and turning actually very dicey, and I was forever treading a very fine line. I must have crashed or spun out ten times before I put in a good clean run.

Cost: 9984
Format: FR
Seats: 2+2
Comfort: 2.9
Fuel Economy: 12.9L/100km
Power: 150.2hp
Weight: 907.8kg
Power:weight ratio: 165.45hp:ton

Mount Glorious Time: 172

stm316 – 1985 G&W Stamford 85

It may have seemed placid and mild (read: boring?) in earlier guises but with its dynamics now truly exposed, this car shows its rebellious nature. Heavy up front and light in the tail, the rear end is prone to slipping out at any given moment, though the response being slow, it is hardly uncontrollable. But because the response is slow, getting the tail out shortly before a tight S is certain death. Taking it slow and steady is the key!

Cost: 10480
Format: FR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 15.4
Fuel Economy: 13.2L/100km
Power: 154.8hp
Weight: 1112.5kg
Power:weight ratio: 139.15hp:ton

Mount Glorious Time: 174

NiuYorqCiti – 1989 Ponni Pistero - RS

Hold up, I have the perfect song for this.

The entire run was basically an escalating series of disasters to the point that by the time I got to the bottom I don’t think any panel was quite the same, including the roof.

Cost: 10173
Format: FR
Seats: 2+2
Comfort: 7
Fuel Economy: 10L/100km
Power: 225.9hp
Weight: 995.4kg
Power:weight ratio: 226.94hp:ton

Mount Glorious Time: 195 sorry NiuYorqCiti, I tried, I really did

SideswipeBL – 1992 Toreer Sommet 250S

As mentioned before the suspension and ride height lent themselves to much trouble if the car so much as wandered onto the runoff. On the plus side, the handling was precise and stable, so if driven sensibly (and kept on the road) it was a pleasant, if not adrenaline pumping, affair. I suspect this will do better than expected for weight and power.

Cost: 8629
Format: FR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 5.6
Fuel Economy: 10L/100km
Power: 163.8hp
Weight: 1089.2kg
Power:weight ratio: 150.39hp:ton

Mount Glorious Time: 170

racer126 – 1994 Geschenk Gato

Not fast, but to its credit, also not that hard to drive. It just feels like it’s overall a bit limited, but it is largely unfussy and easy to guide, even if it steps out a little.

Cost: 9928
Format: FR
Seats: 2+3
Comfort: 4
Fuel Economy: 9.5L/100km
Power: 180.5hp
Weight: 1103.7kg
Power:weight ratio: 163.54hp:ton

Mount Glorious Time: 176

Jaimz – 1995 FM Cerberus Track

Stiff suspensions with low ride heights get a bit unsettled on this course. The response is mighty quick but on patches where the camber undulates and there are bumps the tyres easily lose contact with the ground and the traction suddenly shifts. One could almost say driving this downhill was nearly as twitchy as an S2000, I wonder why I’d say such a thing…

Cost: 9413
Format: FR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 5.3
Fuel Economy: 10.8L/100km
Power: 171.5hp
Weight: 977kg
Power:weight ratio: 175.54hp:ton

Mount Glorious Time: 166

JohnWaldock – 1995 JHW Lynx S5

Ballet on a floor swabbed liberally in butter. There is a certain delight in the unique balance of this car. The extremely limited driving traction is not to be trifled with, yet, given the smoothness of the response, one can’t help but bury the pedal through the floor just to feel the rear end skittering around. This car, if it had more power, wouldn’t go amiss in the uniquely Australian “burnout drag race”. On the undulating curves of Mount Glorious however, it’s a deadly temptation.

Cost: 9989
Format: FR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 16.2
Fuel Economy: 8.2L/100km
Power: 186hp
Weight: 976kg
Power:weight ratio: 190.57hp:ton

Mount Glorious Time: 175

yurimacs – 1997 Bradford Vector R

A car that demands precision due to its limited traction and tight balance, but when driven with precision it is rewarded with… not dying. Twitchy and flighty, it was somehow not so much that with sensibility it didn’t feel impossible to master, but it sure did make me use far more of my concentration.

Cost: 9894
Format: FR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 0.7
Fuel Economy: 8.7L/100km
Power: 195.2hp
Weight: 1072.6kg
Power:weight ratio: 181.99hp:ton

Mount Glorious Time: 170

Mad_Cat – 1998 Petrov Ferro Coupe

Throw a shitbox down the mountain. Don’t even worry about the barriers, just go through em and it’ll probably end up the same. Well, I exaggerate, and this was hardly the worst experience, but as expected, given the dynamics of a wet sponge, it wasn’t exactly fun knowing that if the springs were too loaded and you came in too hot and needed to brake you could cause the car to whip back around and fling you straight into the armco. I’m pleasantly surprised it wasn’t slower.

Cost: 8419
Format: FR
Seats: 4
Comfort: 16
Fuel Economy: 10.6L/100km
Power: 150.7hp
Weight: 1116.5kg
Power:weight ratio: 134.98hp:ton

Mount Glorious Time: 178

MAX_POWER – 1998 Kettenblitz 950QD

Wow that was a handful. The weirdness of the diff here and the extreme twitchiness of the handling manifests here as “NANI!? KANSEI DORIFTOOOOOOO”. Except I don’t want to drift, men. I just wanna get down the mountain alive. I guess sometimes cranking the graph all the way up for that touge balance doesn’t seem to work if the diff isn’t up to the job, and even if I have the skill to drive it fast no Polish street racer miracle Panda Trueno is going to beat something that’s got more traction and less slip.

Cost: 9628
Format: FR
Seats: 2+2
Comfort: 5.7
Fuel Economy: 6.7L/100km
Power: 161.9hp
Weight: 973kg
Power:weight ratio: 166.39hp:ton

Mount Glorious Time: 168

Compared to my reference car:

1995 Matteo Miglia Excelsior Rosso Corsa

http://d3hrnetf5izp16.cloudfront.net/optimized/4X/4/1/7/417bf15910e3d34bb8dab1977ed70ad7daf85c77_1_690x388.jpg

The brakes didn’t actually melt on the run down! Thank god!

Cost: 10758
Format: FR
Seats: 4
Comfort: 15.5
Fuel Economy: 10.3L/100km
Power: 202.1hp
Weight: 1194.7kg
Power:weight ratio: 169.2hp:ton

Mount Glorious Time: 165

In a table, then:

edit: wow that was a brain fart. Proper formatting done now

edit 2: the Pistero is such a bad outlier that I had to change the conditional formatting rule otherwise the entire scale would be stuffed up lol

The only car that was really in touch with the front-runners was, well, mine. And the Cerberus Track, with its super hardcore ride height. And the Kettenblitz wasn’t too far behind despite being so finnicky. What I realised is that a lot of the more powerful cars in this group were on mediums which skews the results, because when I tested a min-max speed mule in FR format, I know that it was capable of demolishing every car currently in this challenge (though that said the other formats had even more potential again).

AirJordan · 5 April 2019 20:34

Man I promise that some day I’ll deliver a car to strop that will not be reviewed last

strop · 6 April 2019 01:21

You’ve been really hard done by haven’t you! I binned one of your cars because it was “Swedish”… I binned another of your cars for a similarly stupid reason… Now your car is literally last on the list hahahaha.

maybe I never forgave you for humiliating me in that little endurance challenge two years back…

FF

No power? No problem! The most controllable cars on the downhill likely leap-frogged several spots in the standings as a whole thanks to their lighter weight and handling characteristics. Once you get over the nostalgia purity circle-jerks of screeching that FWD isn’t driver’s car I’m sure you’ll also come to see the reality of things.

Mikonp7 – 1986 Haapala CupSport Streetlegal

Sharpness on the track with the lightness and responsiveness to the FWD techniques translates very nicely here. Tuck the nose in with left foot brake and modulate the throttle and this car will adjust the corner radius at will, even on steep gradients. A definite winning setup.

Cost: 10187
Format: FF
Seats: 2
Comfort: 7.1
Fuel Economy: 13.8L/100km
Power: 173.1hp
Weight: 906.6kg
Power:weight ratio: 190.93hp:ton

Mount Glorious Time: 167

Ornate – 1991 Akuna Sprinter HF

This time is more like an aggregate of multiple attempts. That’s because I kept crashing. It all started when the front brakes died on the steep downhill heading towards the hairpin. The damage to the pads was so severe the rest of the course was effectively done on the rear pads alone which meant the car kept pitching out, exacerbated by the pillowy front suspension and the extreme weight distribution. Crashing was inevitable unless one drove it like a regular Honda Accord. There are two lessons from this: 1) don’t set the pads below 50 if you can help it. 2) don’t take your family car down the touge and expect it to AE86 Fujiwara touge balance men.

Cost: 9448
Format: FF
Seats: 4
Comfort: 16.6
Fuel Economy: 5.7L/100km
Power: 182.4hp
Weight: 1001.4kg
Power:weight ratio: 182.14hp:ton

Mount Glorious Time: 174

Aaron.W – 1992 Tanaka Aventis (4th Gen) - 2.0 TR (3DR)

This is the place I expected the Tanaka to get unstuck and it did: the super stiff tail happy setup is great when you spend most of your time accelerating on flat ground or uphill but not so much when it’s mostly downhill. Especially when the brakes started giving up halfway. I was only able to attack most of the corners and particularly the undulations around 70% at most because it was like threading a needle with the brake: too much and I’d waste a lot more time straightening out or simply sliding straight into the barriers. By the end of the course it was closer to 60% because again I was effectively rear braking only! This said thanks to the tyres it carried quite a lot of corner speed everywhere when allowed to, so it wasn’t as far behind as I expected.

Cost: 11743
Format: FF
Seats: 2
Comfort: 4.2
Fuel Economy: 9L/100km
Power: 167.1hp
Weight: 985.4kg
Power:weight ratio: 169.58hp:ton

Mount Glorious Time: 168

conan – 1992 Mitsushita Jesta Baleno TCS

With no ABS I was kept on my toes, since locking up is doubly treacherous on the downhill. The sharp but playful character shown in the other tracks came through here but with less room for movement and a slightly longer wheelbase it was mainly the sharpness. Some greater care than expected needed to be taken on some of the slower tightening corners, I suspect this is again due to the relatively stiff rear sway bars, to the point that going on the verge and hitting bumps would cause some two-wheeled shenanigans!

Cost: 9672
Format: FF
Seats: 4
Comfort: 7.7
Fuel Economy: 8.8L/100km
Power: 175.3hp
Weight: 959.6kg
Power:weight ratio: 182.68hp:ton

Mount Glorious Time: 165

Xepy – 1992 Kuma SU Si Coupe (2+2)

Maybe it’s the weight after all, plus the wheelbase. But it still doesn’t quite make sense. This car is remarkably resistant to rotating compared to its FWD bretheren though it certainly is the biggest and heaviest of them. It’s like the limits of the front end traction are met very easily and on a regular basis, resulting in a fixed turning rate. The brakes work to aid rotation a little but only within reason. Despite that it’s far from the slowest, which goes to show that with enough control it can perform to the best of its ability.

Cost: 10173
Format: FF
Seats: 4
Comfort: 7.1
Fuel Economy: 11.3L/100km
Power: 209.5hp
Weight: 1138.1kg
Power:weight ratio: 184.08hp:ton

Mount Glorious Time: 168

Centurion_23 – 1994 Jade-Gemin GLX

It could have been much worse. With an actually realistic tyre profile I was wondering just how little grip I would have. The car’s handling actually wasn’t that bad: it felt light and responsive and the corner speeds were decent. What really had me sweating was the brakes: with that much wobble in the tyres anything more than 20% on the brakes resulted up in hilarious lock-up which would then shortly after be followed by an appointment with the armco or a tree. If this thing could get any more tree-hugger it’d join Greenpeace. Aside from that it actually felt quick in the latter half, even with the power disadvantage.

Cost: 8537
Format: FF
Seats: 4
Comfort: 9.5
Fuel Economy: 7.8L/100km
Power: 144.2hp
Weight: 945.2kg
Power:weight ratio: 152.56hp:ton

Mount Glorious Time: 170

Traviq_125 – 1994 Iserim Sol

After I crashed a few times I started wondering if I was actually drunk. Then I noticed that the front end was quite sluggish and pitched a lot. Seems that the soft sway-bars up front were not very noticeable earlier due to the car’s lack of speed all around. As a result it was actually pretty hard going! Felt like I was in a mud pit derby at some points.

Cost: 7717
Format: FF
Seats: 4
Comfort: 5.1
Fuel Economy: 8.3L/100km
Power: 120.3hp
Weight: 887.5kg
Power:weight ratio: 135.55hp:ton

Mount Glorious Time: 177

Madrias – 2000 Ishu Astrion 700T

The downsides of the pillowy front end reared its head on the downhill, in particular struggling with rapid direction changes on the steeper sections as expected. The small size of this car however proved to be a boon and when not having to plan an S bend carefully it was really capable of carrying unexpectedly fast corner speeds. Once again the same character predominated: it felt slower than it was, and this is probably due to the lengthy response time and therefore disconnect in steering and direction.

Cost: 10130
Format: FF
Seats: 4
Comfort: 10.9
Fuel Economy: 6.9L/100km
Power: 114.9hp
Weight: 860kg
Power:weight ratio: 133.6hp:ton

Mount Glorious Time: 173

Compared to my reference car:

1991 Armada Motors Fore Gen.II Eagle GTi

Point the nose in and VTEC JUST KICKED IN YO, except also with turbo. Shingo’s EG6 ain’t got shit on this. And besides, I’m way better than Shingo anyway.

Cost: 9352
Format: FF
Seats: 4
Comfort: 6.2
Fuel Economy: 7.5L/100km
Power: 182.1hp
Weight: 908.6kg
Power:weight ratio: 200.4hp:ton

Mount Glorious Time: 162

In a table, then:

Even disregarding my own freakish car, there’s no denying that the least powerful class were quite fast. Anything under 170s was plenty fast already. And this was one place the Jade-Gemin shone.

strop · 8 April 2019 04:16

I’m flying in a few hours! So I’ll smash this out right now so I can get the analysis up tomorrow.

AWD

AWD is great for grip under power, yes, but it doesn’t make heroes out of everything. Just how much were these held back by their own weight and bulk?

GassTiresandOil – 1988 Armor Cricket GT4

Doesn’t miss a single step. There were times that it was hard to keep the car in the right power band but that’s not a big feature of the downhill. It was supremely controllable, and with a compact build I felt I could thread the corners precisely and with ease. A front-runner.

Cost: 10357
Format: AWD
Seats: 4
Comfort: 7.4
Fuel Economy: 11L/100km
Power: 233.5hp
Weight: 1078.4kg
Power:weight ratio: 216.52hp:ton

Mount Glorious Time: 164

gridghost – 1995 Scarab Nova GT-X26

I apologise for referencing Initial D, but this is literally the story of the Myogi Night Kids: Nakazato’s Skyline. A front heavy, heavy in general big AWD car on a steep twisting downhill feels very exposed. There’s lots of understeer and slippage and one can’t get on the throttle a moment too soon or risk running into the barriers. The ride remains taut but the handling clumsy, lubugrious compared to its virile potency on a more even track. The Tofumobile will surely be looking to hunt this down.

Cost: 11702
Format: AWD
Seats: 4
Comfort: 1.5
Fuel Economy: 10.4L/100km
Power: 313.5hp
Weight: 1284.8kg
Power:weight ratio: 244.01hp:ton

Mount Glorious Time: 166

NeO – 1995 Kitanishi Fleuris SP2000

With much protesting from the front tyres I wrestled this big slab of rally-derived machine down. It was mostly drama free but being heavy, it obviously felt the need to run wide as much as possible. With good brake discipline, however, the run was trouble-free. And, as you can see, this is one such place where being down on power it is at no disadvantage to the Scarab!

Cost: 11993
Format: AWD
Seats: 2+2
Comfort: 7.1
Fuel Economy: 9L/100km
Power: 176.2hp
Weight: 1265.9kg
Power:weight ratio: 218.18hp:ton

Mount Glorious Time: 166

brunator – 1999 BCT T1001S 525TS

Drives like a bloody hovercraft in an avalanche. I won’t deny that yanking the handbrake and pulling sick drifts around tight corners has its fun sides but there was, as mentioned, simply not enough grip to go around, and yet also the turbo lag was too great to really take advantage of tyre slip.

Cost: 10000
Format: AWD
Seats: 4
Comfort: 2.7
Fuel Economy: 9.7L/100km
Power: 300.4hp
Weight: 1060.2kg
Power:weight ratio: 283.34hp:ton

Mount Glorious Time: 180

ELBruno – 2000 Marquez CDD SWS 270i6

The true strength of the wagon shines through. Unexpected as it is, the heaviest contender is also one of the quickest, aided by its ample turn in, forgiving ride and incredible traction under power in the low speed corners. The comparatively short gearing makes it ideal for sprints. Imagine how terrifying it would be to take on the touge in a small sports car and feel like you’re cutting the course up only to have this hulking big brick in your mirrors shortly before being completely devoured.

Cost: 10000
Format: AWD
Seats: 4
Comfort: 6.3
Fuel Economy: 11.2L/100km
Power: 271.6hp
Weight: 1289.9kg
Power:weight ratio: 210.56hp:ton

Mount Glorious Time: 163

Obfuscious – 2000 Rocinante

Aaaaahahahahahahahaha hold on to your knickers coz this thing goes like blazes. Lightweight, powerful and AWD with a big fat wing. Crazy fast around the longer sweeping sections of the first half. Much more fussy in the second half, because for some reason it struggled for traction (due to the weight distribution probably) and felt very tight and resistant to rotate smoothly. I kinda just wrestled it around and punched the gas really hard to make up for it and as a result it’s still the fastest down the mountain.

Cost: 9998
Format: AWD
Seats: 2
Comfort: 0.8
Fuel Economy: 13.2L/100km
Power: 209.8hp
Weight: 815.6kg
Power:weight ratio: 257.23hp:ton

Mount Glorious Time: 161

As you may recall I didn’t make an AWD car so here’s the table:

MR

Some of the cars here have proven to have fantastic potential, if not for maybe one or two fundamental issues (more often than not underdone brakes). MR is hardly unsuitable for the downhill, with enough caution applied to braking from high speeds, for sharp precise low to medium speed handling actually favours it.

PugeHenis – 1983 Stelvio O-56

Back to sensible speeds with slightly un-sensible handling. Once learned through smacking a barrier once or twice due to slight overconfidence at just how smooth the car seems and having the back end just whip out terminally, one becomes more cautious. It doesn’t take kindly to the undulations of the latter half, requiring that one plant themselves right in the middle of the road, and stay there just in case it decides to get up to a bit of bottom-wagging mischief, much like environmentalists disrupting the Brexit Parliament.

Cost: 11117
Format: MR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 0.2
Fuel Economy: 12.6L/100km
Power: 230hp
Weight: 1167.4kg
Power:weight ratio: 197.02hp:ton

Mount Glorious Time: 175

Lava_Cake – 1987 TX7 B6

The king of understeer proceeded at a stately pace down the mountain, accompanied by the squealing and wailing of tortured front tyres. And yet, if there was ever a time that the TX7 could be unseated, it would be on the downhill. Lift-off oversteer is virtually non-existent in this car but if one is turning hard and applies the brakes a bit too sharpish… well. That’s what’s supposed to happen in a mid-engined car but I almost forgot it was possible. On the plus side, once recalibrated, it made up by being so stable that threading the needle in the latter half of the course was child’s play.

Cost: 10100
Format: MR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 15.9 sew fanceh
Fuel Economy: 11.9L/100km
Power: 145.8hp
Weight: 1063.2kg
Power:weight ratio: 137.13hp:ton

Mount Glorious Time: 172

DoctorNarfy – 1991 Shromet Interval GTS

I reckon I could have actually been a few seconds faster if not having to attack the entire hill at about 75% because of the damn brakes. If not for that tiny issue, this would be hands down the NICEST handling car, which is an achievement because that’s been a consistent feature across just about every track. Even being mid-engined, higher powered and going downhill it loses none of the stability and sharpness of its handling.

Cost: 11368
Format: MR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 10.1
Fuel Economy: 12.5L/100km
Power: 251.6hp
Weight: 1175.7kg
Power:weight ratio: 214hp:ton

Mount Glorious Time: 166

CC9020 – 1992 Fuji RMS GTR Homologation

One of the three “ultra low riders” in this lineup, it shares the awkward handling characteristics of the other two. When the roads are good, take good advantage of its great stability and road-holding, because when the bumps come, watch out! Need I also say you know the brakes are too small when you can’t even drink a cuppa tea off them, or, in this case, the fronts completely melt before you’re even halfway done.

Cost: 9817
Format: MR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 2.6
Fuel Economy: 8.8L/100km
Power: 185.4hp
Weight: 1047.7kg
Power:weight ratio: 176.96hp:ton

Mount Glorious Time: 166

And compared to my reference car:

1983 Matteo Miglia Legatus

The whole “the front end shakes under heavy braking” ruins what is otherwise a really nice run even at higher speeds and is really starting to get me down. I should take a look at what the deal with that is but in this case I suspect it’s “the front end is too light for the traction”.

Cost: 9231
Format: MR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 4.2
Fuel Economy: 13.1L/100km
Power: 197.3hp
Weight: 884.6kg
Power:weight ratio: 223hp:ton

Mount Glorious Time: 166

In a table, then:

RR

I am scarred for life.

Lordred – 1981 Pulsar Defiant

Phew. This car had the single worst case of shimmy-shake under brakes in the entire test. I think the reason for this is just the way the weight went into the front, plus possibly the softness? Of the suspension. The roly-poly handling was a mixed blessing: not quite as snappy as the Strato, but also even harder to predict and recover. Much caution and no more than 40% braking pressure was used in the run, and all in all considering it returned an okay time.

Cost: 9518
Format: RR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 2.6
Fuel Economy: 13.9L/100km
Power: 142.6hp
Weight: 656kg
Power:weight ratio: 217.38hp:ton

Mount Glorious Time: 172

Dorifto_Dorito – 1987 Nohda Strato (82) Super Strato Turbo (87)

I will never quite remember how for the life of me I managed to get this down the mountain. It required supreme caution and lightning reflexes. It just wanted to swap ends so fast I couldn’t even blink. Truth be told I spun at the very end and just had to guesstimate the time a bit because there is no way in hell I’m trying again.

Cost: 9461
Format: RR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 11.4
Fuel Economy: 12L/100km
Power: 163.9hp
Weight: 763.5kg
Power:weight ratio: 214.67hp:ton

Mount Glorious Time: 173

AirJordan – 2000 Smooth Notsomuch

Most interesting handling. As promised the “playfulness” of the rear swinging out became a foremost feature on the steep downhill sections, but it was hardly so severe as to be unpleasant. Rather, the temptation was instead of trying to keep the lines as clean as possible, to get that tail wagging in the undulating sections. Even despite this thanks to its lightness it proved nimble and able to keep up with the faster models. One of the most fun.

Cost: 9988
Format: RR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 13.3
Fuel Economy: 6L/100km
Power: 162.7hp
Weight: 841.2kg
Power:weight ratio: 193.41hp:ton

Mount Glorious Time: 165

Compared with my reference car:

1985 Polski Bomba Street

It may be rear-engined but that’s the secret weapon of this car. Super light, with the weight pitching onto the front wheels on the downhill, it actually was able to fulfill its potential as a superior cornering machine. Still not as controllable as its FWD counterparts, of course

Cost: 8279
Format: RR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 2.8
Fuel Economy: 8.6L/100km
Power: 151.2hp
Weight: 615.3kg
Power:weight ratio: 245.7hp:ton

Mount Glorious Time: 162

In a table, then:

Right. I got like a just a few minutes on the run so I’ll paste this table here… and comment later!

As you can see I’ve marked the extreme outlier way over yonder lol because in this case it was just that far out

strop · 24 April 2019 22:34

Okay sorry so I did intend to post this earlier but it was actually kind of hard getting enough of a window of time and internet working on this vacation. As it stands I’m able to do this now not because my internet is good but because I can’t do anything else because I think I ate too much cheese ~~and those of you who read the Kinda Grand Tour know how that pans out~~.

Stage 4 Analysis

I’ll first post by the time, which, since this is done in seconds as it was rather approximate, was also organised by lower power to weight ratio for cars with the same time to the nearest second.

The Rocinante really ran away with this one, with the highest grip and useable power ratio. To be honest it’s a finnicky handler that doesn’t actually like rotating that much compared to the Fore GTi which can’t get enough of corners on any incline. But the Bomba was there purely to show what you can really do if you tune a rear-engined car hard enough.

There were some real surprises here. First and foremost that big fat wagon which had no business going so fast down the touge, and far from what I expected when I tested things like the Kitanshi Fleuris and the Scarab Nova. It really gave zero fucks about how big it was and loved getting the nose in.

The real emerging stand-outs made their impression here too. The Jesta Baleno excelled despite having no ABS and a solid rear axle. The Smooth shows what you can do with a tame rear-engined car. Following these were a few cars that were extraordinarily quick despite having some serious brake issues.

I was pleasantly surprised at how well the Kuma did here, but that’s probably explained by the fact that the Kuma’s issues are mainly in power application and it otherwise handles just fine.

I figure anything 170s and below was either a) actually not powerful at all b) had some dynamic problem that was either unmasked by this stage or was already well known.

Now if we turn our attention to organising it by ratio:

I think the lesson as mentioned from the MM Excelsior topping this list and the ATT list is simply: “if you have a lot of tyre with low profile the car turns and stops gud”. In real terms this means for fairness what I really should be doing in tests like these is tightly regulating the tyre profile and width as well as the compound.

The Cerberus Track needs a mention here: usually marooned somewhere in the middle of where and not particularly standing out on the board, it’s actually a strong performer despite my expectations given how uneven parts of the road can get.

Unsurprisingly the cars with lower power got higher delta scores because of gravity assisted acceleration lol. And that weighting was quite overwhelming. The main exception to this that surprised me was the Geschenk Gato: it seemed like a decently easy car to drive and so I thought it’d be a few seconds faster downhill than it was. Then again I realise my assessment of “easy” was “when it gets loose I can gather it up again without crashing”, and it did get loose rather often, it’s just that it wasn’t too bad because it was also not very fast.

Overall: not surprising. I mean I’m still not sure there wasn’t a whiff of fantasy in the plot of Initial D but the premise certainly rings true… if you also account for the fact that it featured a lot of shitty drivers

Lava_Cake · 24 April 2019 22:46

Wow, very surprised how well it did for its power/weight ratio, makes sense I guess, its a naturally understeery car (Which helps downhill), especially for MR.

strop · 25 April 2019 08:07

I mean the power was much less of a factor here but nonetheless I think it was because this car could be driven at 100% almost all of the time that it exceeded expectations. This said if the sway bars were done more normally I bet it could be a couple of seconds faster… But also require a bit more skill.

AirJordan · 25 April 2019 16:50

I would find it interesting to see how would Notsomuch compare with Bomba if I reduce the comfort to your skateboard level (or 0.something plank with wheels) and introduce some aggression. Like R verison… Because right now I’m top half in laptime and comfort and that’s just a safe space to be.

strop · 25 April 2019 18:38

There appears to be a tipping point in wheel size and wheelbase. I actually retuned what was effectively a RWD Porsche 911 Turbo made by Rk38 and gave it about 900hp… Very tame actually as long as one wasn’t too silly on the throttle until 3rd… The big challenge with Dorito and Lordred’s cars was they used the body with the smallest wheelbase that also had tiny wheels and was top heavy. It took a lot to bring it under control.

strop · 30 April 2019 05:10

It’s pretty hard getting things done while constantly on the move! I’m back now, which means we can get this thing done:

Stage 5: Hillclimb

You’d think punting a car up a hill takes a lot of power. It does. But when the road is very uneven, has some bumpy sections and the whole thing is dangerously narrow, it also requires a lot of agility and nimbleness. I’d expect the more powerful cars to not have a huge advantage. It all comes down to just how much control one has over the speed.

FR

Perenial underperformers as a class, the foibles of the cars with this drivetrain continued. This is hardly surprising and actually not so much an indictment of the cars (although I do also note that most of the unbalanced cars came from this class), because they also happened to be the mostly light less powerful ones with no LSD too.

JANXOL – 1982 Cyanide Motors 1982 Terrier - S1

If the twitchy handling was a bit exposed previously, the rough and uneven roads of Italy cracked it wide open. There just felt like there was very little leeway between “doesn’t want to rotate” and “wants to spin out”. I think this is because of high spring rates, if I recall correctly, and what feels like an overly lively rear. Every bump jostled the car and threatened to send it out of joint. And yes, can confirm, the brakes are a bit too rear-biased!

Cost: 9984
Format: FR
Seats: 2+2
Comfort: 2.9
Fuel Economy: 12.9L/100km
Power: 150.2hp
Weight: 907.8kg
Power:weight ratio: 165.45hp:ton

Hillclimb Time: 176.547

stm316 – 1985 G&W Stamford 85

Take a quick survey with its counterparts at the bottom of the power ladder and it’s fairly clear where it stands in the order: it doesn’t have nearly as much driving traction as the TX7, it’s heavier than the Iserim and the Ishu Astrion, but it was much more dyanmically focused than the Petrov. This is one case where even if the lack of an LSD was felt here I don’t think it would have been cost-effective to install one.

Cost: 10480
Format: FR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 15.4
Fuel Economy: 13.2L/100km
Power: 154.8hp
Weight: 1112.5kg
Power:weight ratio: 139.15hp:ton

Hillclimb Time: 178.959

NiuYorqCiti – 1989 Ponni Pistero - RS

This track confirms everything that I’ve said before with the utmost clarity: in fact it wouldn’t be half bad a car and NYC has suffered terribly but for one fundamental issue: a crippling lack of traction. Everything else looked great on the Automation charts but for that the limit of the car’s grip was extraordinarily low. In this case I simply stuck it in 3rd and left it there because first and second were a screechy, squirrelly mess that did nothing but generate lots of smoke.

Cost: 10173
Format: FR
Seats: 2+2
Comfort: 7
Fuel Economy: 10L/100km
Power: 225.9hp
Weight: 995.4kg
Power:weight ratio: 226.94hp:ton

Hillclimb Time: 183.918

SideswipeBL – 1992 Toreer Sommet 250S

Not fast, no, but responsive yes. As predicted the low ride height and suspension shenanigans meant the car really bounced and the springs did some strange things when going over the cobblestone sections and hitting other bumps. If those were navigated with due caution then I was fairly able to give it the beans for most of the rest.

Cost: 8629
Format: FR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 5.6
Fuel Economy: 10L/100km
Power: 163.8hp
Weight: 1089.2kg
Power:weight ratio: 150.39hp:ton

Hillclimb Time: 174.114

racer126 – 1994 Geschenk Gato

It may not be the fastest of the FR cars, but it’s one of the more entertaining for how forgiving it is even in rough conditions. There was even scope for some flambouyance while tossing it up this godforsaken hill!

Cost: 9928
Format: FR
Seats: 2+3
Comfort: 4
Fuel Economy: 9.5L/100km
Power: 180.5hp
Weight: 1103.7kg
Power:weight ratio: 163.54hp:ton

Hillclimb Time: 174.075

Jaimz – 1995 FM Cerberus Track

Well the cobblestones weren’t as bad for the ride as I feared. What they did do was, just like every other little imperfection and undulation in the road, dramatically alter my contact patch with the road such that the car responded wildly differently to throttle and steering input. That’s to be expected: conventional tuning wisdom states the stiffer the suspension the less traction you’ll have over bumps. This said the control of the car itself is so good that I was able to compensate for this by driving smoothly.

Cost: 9413
Format: FR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 5.3
Fuel Economy: 10.8L/100km
Power: 171.5hp
Weight: 977kg
Power:weight ratio: 175.54hp:ton

Hillclimb Time: 168.131

JohnWaldock – 1995 JHW Lynx S5

I know with rear wheels driven, super tall gearing and not much traction this was going to be pretty hairy and I was right. But forwarned is forearmed and so with good throttle discipline I was at least able to keep it mostly neat and tidy, with a little room for the tail to skip out. It’s hardly fast, in fact, one of the slowest, and that comes as precisely zero surprise.

Cost: 9989
Format: FR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 16.2
Fuel Economy: 8.2L/100km
Power: 186hp
Weight: 976kg
Power:weight ratio: 190.57hp:ton

Hillclimb Time: 178.715

yurimacs – 1997 Bradford Vector R

Just never apply more gas than necessary for too long and you should be just fine, right? Right! Maybe it’s because I was already very cautious of the balance of this car that it seemed more intuitive what to do. There was a lot of slipping and sliding so I’m sure the time isn’t very quick, but I guess I was already expecting that.

Cost: 9894
Format: FR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 0.7
Fuel Economy: 8.7L/100km
Power: 195.2hp
Weight: 1072.6kg
Power:weight ratio: 181.99hp:ton

Hillclimb Time: 170.807

Mad_Cat – 1998 Petrov Ferro Coupe

In yet another milestone for this amazingly mediocre shitbox, I think this may have been the only car that almost overheated the brakes on an uphill race!

Cost: 8419
Format: FR
Seats: 4
Comfort: 16
Fuel Economy: 10.6L/100km
Power: 150.7hp
Weight: 1116.5kg
Power:weight ratio: 134.98hp:ton

Hillclimb Time: 181.869

MAX_POWER – 1998 Kettenblitz 950QD

In this map where power application is key, the difference in time between here and Mount Glorious is quite telling: it implies the handling is excellent (it really is), but there’s limited traction on turning which means the inside wheel is extremely prone to spinning and since it’s an open diff there’s virtually no power going to the driving wheel. That necessitates a lot of caution on a rough track because the power delivery becomes very uneven and makes the handling slightly unpredictable, so I just had to go very easy on the throttle in general. What was the rear sway bar setting again?

Cost: 9628
Format: FR
Seats: 2+2
Comfort: 5.7
Fuel Economy: 6.7L/100km
Power: 161.9hp
Weight: 973kg
Power:weight ratio: 166.39hp:ton

Hillclimb Time: 174.255

Compared to my reference car:

1995 Matteo Miglia Excelsior Rosso Corsa

If I recall correctly this was the version that didn’t have a limited slip diff. Well, it should have had one! The amount of one-wheel peel was ridiculous and that’s probably why despite having such good times elsewhere it was pretty let down here.

Cost: 10758
Format: FR
Seats: 4
Comfort: 15.5
Fuel Economy: 10.3L/100km
Power: 202.1hp
Weight: 1194.7kg
Power:weight ratio: 169.2hp:ton

Hillclimb Time: 166.543

I’m going to skip the tables this time and go straight for the big one, as that will be more useful overall.

FF

If there was a time FF would truly struggle, it should be the uphill, right? With the weight shifting to the rear under acceleration exacerbated by the gradient, traction and purchase with the driving wheels would be further compromised, which means there’s even less power to play with in reality. The only way to compensate for that is with lots of traction and maneuverability under braking, which, fortunately, is something required in absolute spades on this course.

Mikonp7 – 1986 Haapala CupSport Streetlegal

It is a shame I didn’t record the replay. On the final stretch I actually clipped a rock (due to a certain over-eagerness which I’ll discuss later). The car did a perfect barrel roll and landed upright, upon which I floored it and continued to the finish line. If not for that the time would probably be a good second faster, but such a badass move should not go unmentioned. Why was I pushing too hard? Because this car has more control than it does power! It just encouraged me to do more and more and find the limits… but I frequently ran into understeer issues as a result.

Cost: 10187
Format: FF
Seats: 2
Comfort: 7.1
Fuel Economy: 13.8L/100km
Power: 173.1hp
Weight: 906.6kg
Power:weight ratio: 190.93hp:ton

Hillclimb Time: 164.63 which was actually well over a second slower than the entry before it, so I didn’t feel too bad about losing time as it didn’t affect position

Ornate – 1991 Akuna Sprinter HF

Given the front sway bars, the response was very slow which also meant that it didn’t mind the bumps all that much. I just had to make sure that I didn’t try to change direction too quickly and it was mostly fine, aside from the very annoying problem of yawning gap in power between gears.

Cost: 9448
Format: FF
Seats: 4
Comfort: 16.6
Fuel Economy: 5.7L/100km
Power: 182.4hp
Weight: 1001.4kg
Power:weight ratio: 182.14hp:ton

Hillclimb Time: 164.709

Aaron.W – 1992 Tanaka Aventis (4th Gen) - 2.0 TR (3DR)

I was expecting more trouble from the rear sway bars. But then again the driving wheels themselves are very well set up, so it was mitigated. There was certain some odd hiccup or two in the sharpest of the hairpins, otherwise in this I was able to tackle the course with a far greater confidence than most so despite being down on power it’s one of the fastest.

Cost: 11743
Format: FF
Seats: 2
Comfort: 4.2
Fuel Economy: 9L/100km
Power: 167.1hp
Weight: 985.4kg
Power:weight ratio: 169.58hp:ton

Hillclimb Time: 161.544

conan – 1992 Mitsushita Jesta Baleno TCS

Twitchy as hell, especially with the solid rear axle and stiff rear sway bars, which had me nervous given the rear tailgate was liable to clip any of the bollards just to the side of the narrow roads. But it remains also one of the most controllable cars in the lineup and so despite a little sideways jiggle in the alleyways, I was able to keep it on the narrow without too much trouble. The limited traction under power demanded caution on the throttle but a preemptive dab of left foot brake deftly corrected any problems as always.

Cost: 9672
Format: FF
Seats: 4
Comfort: 7.7
Fuel Economy: 8.8L/100km
Power: 175.3hp
Weight: 959.6kg
Power:weight ratio: 182.68hp:ton

Hillclimb Time: 163.364

Xepy – 1992 Kuma SU Si Coupe (2+2)

Respect the limited turning circle of this car and everything will be okay!

Cost: 10173
Format: FF
Seats: 4
Comfort: 7.1
Fuel Economy: 11.3L/100km
Power: 209.5hp
Weight: 1138.1kg
Power:weight ratio: 184.08hp:ton

Hillclimb Time: 170.776

Centurion_23 – 1994 Jade-Gemin GLX

Pretty good actually. The lack of power was mitigated by the rest of the package being pretty well balanced and in this case the high profile of the tyres actually helped smooth out a lot of the bumps and travel over kerbs, which gave it an unlikely edge.

Cost: 8537
Format: FF
Seats: 4
Comfort: 9.5
Fuel Economy: 7.8L/100km
Power: 144.2hp
Weight: 945.2kg
Power:weight ratio: 152.56hp:ton

Hillclimb Time: 172.607

Traviq_125 – 1994 Iserim Sol

Moral of the story: as long as it’s not going downhill, the Sol seems to drive okay for a slow car!

Cost: 7717
Format: FF
Seats: 4
Comfort: 5.1
Fuel Economy: 8.3L/100km
Power: 120.3hp
Weight: 887.5kg
Power:weight ratio: 135.55hp:ton

Hillclimb Time: 176.57

Madrias – 2000 Ishu Astrion 700T

Lacking in power means a lot of gas and a lot of gas means a lot of left foot brake dabbing to limit the understeer from slippage. There are other FWD cars that aren’t as badly affected by this which contributes to how it feels a bit slower than it should. But you should see just how far this is up the table for such little power!

Cost: 10130
Format: FF
Seats: 4
Comfort: 10.9
Fuel Economy: 6.9L/100km
Power: 114.9hp
Weight: 860kg
Power:weight ratio: 133.6hp:ton

Hillclimb Time: 170.294

Compared to my reference car:

1991 Armada Motors Fore Gen.II Eagle GTi

I’ll be extremely impressed if anything can beat this time. Anything at all. What an absolute freak of a car.

Cost: 9352
Format: FF
Seats: 4
Comfort: 6.2
Fuel Economy: 7.5L/100km
Power: 182.1hp
Weight: 908.6kg
Power:weight ratio: 200.4hp:ton

Hillclimb Time: 155.699 waddafak men

AWD

Would it surprise you if I said that despite the difficulties faced by the generally larger AWD cars they were still top of the table? But of course they should be, the big power was also married to big traction!

GassTiresandOil – 1988 Armor Cricket GT4

Where this car was previously the proverbial dancer here it felt more like a clodding in-fighter. Resistant to rotate, prone to understeer, needing a gentle and early application of the brakes. This was the one track where the car actually felt larger than it really was. What a surprise!

Cost: 10357
Format: AWD
Seats: 4
Comfort: 7.4
Fuel Economy: 11L/100km
Power: 233.5hp
Weight: 1078.4kg
Power:weight ratio: 216.52hp:ton

Hillclimb Time: 160.285

gridghost – 1995 Scarab Nova GT-X26

Note to self: big cars with lots of power are tricky on tight technical roads. This big sedan, one of the heaviest and largest, felt rather out of place on the tight roads of the Italian hillside. The surefooted handling on the open track only partially translates to the B-road. It was necessary to dial the pace back a few notches to avoid overdoing it and bouncing off a kerb into a fire hydrant. The time is more a testament to its sheer pace, but I do note that it’s not much faster than cars with significantly less power… yet since this is the uphill portion it would make sense that it still carried a significant advantage.

Cost: 11702
Format: AWD
Seats: 4
Comfort: 1.5
Fuel Economy: 10.4L/100km
Power: 313.5hp
Weight: 1284.8kg
Power:weight ratio: 244.01hp:ton

Hillclimb Time: 157.045

NeO – 1995 Kitanishi Fleuris SP2000

I am confident that I managed to get at least 99% out of this car. Despite being on the larger side it never felt particularly claustrophobic, and telegraphed its limits well. It may not be the absolute fastest around but the confidence that I had means that it’d perform consistently well.

Cost: 11993
Format: AWD
Seats: 2+2
Comfort: 7.1
Fuel Economy: 9L/100km
Power: 176.2hp
Weight: 1265.9kg
Power:weight ratio: 218.18hp:ton

Hillclimb Time: 158.774

brunator – 1999 BCT T1001S 525TS

It started out not too bad because of the compact size. Granted the lack of traction made it a bit harder but with a bit of care it was navigating things okay. But push just a little too hard and the car would pitch to the side and the lack of traction would cause serious delay in response which was fatal in the plentiful sharp S bends. If I was a cat I’d still be dead, but on the plus side, well above last place for once!

Cost: 10000
Format: AWD
Seats: 4
Comfort: 2.7
Fuel Economy: 9.7L/100km
Power: 300.4hp
Weight: 1060.2kg
Power:weight ratio: 283.34hp:ton

Hillclimb Time: 173.337

ELBruno – 2000 Marquez CDD SWS 270i6

This is down on power and heavier than the other AWD cars but it actually felt the nicest of the lot to drive, perhaps because it was so predictable and facile. The softness that held it back on an all-out track test lent itself well to floating over all the imperfections and the front-bias of the drivetrain allowed it to power through everything while even nosing in. Nobody would expect a big wagon like this to handle like a much smaller car!

Cost: 10000
Format: AWD
Seats: 4
Comfort: 6.3
Fuel Economy: 11.2L/100km
Power: 271.6hp
Weight: 1289.9kg
Power:weight ratio: 210.56hp:ton

Hillclimb Time: 160.787

Obfuscious – 2000 Rocinante

If small and punchy was going to win the day I had a surprise coming here. I just couldn’t quite match the sheer power of the Scarab Nova, but it wasn’t the power that was the issue. It was actually the weight distribution: despite everything this car is remarkably resistant to rotating when braking or accelerating unless one gives it a damn good clutch kick out of a hairpin (then it’s liable to spin out). Also the wheels are tiny and thus it was disproportionately jostled by the bumps of the Italian road. Just couldn’t quite soak up all that instability and was a bit too tight to rotate, and that made all the difference.

Cost: 9998
Format: AWD
Seats: 2
Comfort: 0.8
Fuel Economy: 13.2L/100km
Power: 209.8hp
Weight: 815.6kg
Power:weight ratio: 257.23hp:ton

Hillclimb Time: 157.439

MR

A tricky drivetrain for this application, but a romantic one when conjuring up the racing and rally heroes of yesteryear. Can it live up to hype, or with so few examples, will it be hard to find the one that finds the sweet spot?

PugeHenis – 1983 Stelvio O-56

You know how this was the worst offender when it came to giant gaps in power when shifting up? Yeah. This. I really didn’t know what gear to pick as I would literally LOSE SPEED if I shifted into third in some sections. So now you know, don’t make engines like that.

Cost: 11117
Format: MR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 0.2
Fuel Economy: 12.6L/100km
Power: 230hp
Weight: 1167.4kg
Power:weight ratio: 197.02hp:ton

Hillclimb Time: 175.592

Lava_Cake – 1987 TX7 B6

Easy enough to drive. It HATES the hairpins though: I had to take them extra slow because the front wheel threatened to lift off and that actually sharply limited the turning circle. This comes as precisely no surprise, of course.

Cost: 10100
Format: MR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 15.9 sew fanceh
Fuel Economy: 11.9L/100km
Power: 145.8hp
Weight: 1063.2kg
Power:weight ratio: 137.13hp:ton

Hillclimb Time: 173.058

DoctorNarfy – 1991 Shromet Interval GTS

Sublime smoothness was barely ruffled by even the worst of tracks. The main caution here (for once not the brakes, though they very nearly did overheat), was given its considerable bulk and neutral handling, care had to be taken on some of the slower corners in the second half. And of course, given the ride height, some awkward things happaned with the suepension geometry in the biggest of the dips which delayed me getting back on the throttle after several hair pins.

Cost: 11368
Format: MR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 10.1
Fuel Economy: 12.5L/100km
Power: 251.6hp
Weight: 1175.7kg
Power:weight ratio: 214hp:ton

Hillclimb Time: 161.547

CC9020 – 1992 Fuji RMS GTR Homologation

This may very well be the worst of the lowriders. I was getting air over some of those bumps.

Cost: 9817
Format: MR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 2.6
Fuel Economy: 8.8L/100km
Power: 185.4hp
Weight: 1047.7kg
Power:weight ratio: 176.96hp:ton

Hillclimb Time: 167.878

And compared to my reference car:

1983 Matteo Miglia Legatus

That’s a handful. The razor-sharp handling has very little give and so it was actually harder to find a proper purchase on the roads than one might have figured. A lot of crashing was done. In the end I dialled it back about 5% just to get it finished.

Cost: 9231
Format: MR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 4.2
Fuel Economy: 13.1L/100km
Power: 197.3hp
Weight: 884.6kg
Power:weight ratio: 223hp:ton

Hillclimb Time: 162.272

RR

Heaven or Hell, Let’s Rock!

Lordred – 1981 Pulsar Defiant

This was the best of several attempts which invariably included a spin, because it was simply too difficult to brake evenly on an uneven surface without completely going off the attack. If not for braking the Pulsar would have performend quite a successful French invasion of Italy, as this was the one venue where the soft front didn’t make the handling unduly difficult.

Cost: 9518
Format: RR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 2.6
Fuel Economy: 13.9L/100km
Power: 142.6hp
Weight: 656kg
Power:weight ratio: 217.38hp:ton

Hillclimb Time: 170.932

Dorifto_Dorito – 1987 Nohda Strato (82) Super Strato Turbo (87)

Zero margin for error. Flips out on the most miniscule of provocations. No way of saving oneself. This is THE most unforgiving car of the entire lineup and it was only through dialing it back to about 70% in some segments that I was able to get it to the finish line.

Cost: 9461
Format: RR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 11.4
Fuel Economy: 12L/100km
Power: 163.9hp
Weight: 763.5kg
Power:weight ratio: 214.67hp:ton

Hillclimb Time: 170.839

AirJordan – 2000 Smooth Notsomuch

The temptation to let the butt do the work in the corners was high but Italy has unforgiving bumpy narrow roads. Even the softer ride of the Smooth was not enough to temper the beast, and so a more conservative approach was necessary.

Cost: 9988
Format: RR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 13.3
Fuel Economy: 6L/100km
Power: 162.7hp
Weight: 841.2kg
Power:weight ratio: 193.41hp:ton

Hillclimb Time: 161.867

Compared with my reference car:

1985 Polski Bomba Street

Wew. It may not be the most cost-effective, power to weight wise, but it gets the job done brutally effective. After all, what does it matter if one has to go 70% over the bumpy sections when it’s so damn potent?

Cost: 8279
Format: RR
Seats: 2
Comfort: 2.8
Fuel Economy: 8.6L/100km
Power: 151.2hp
Weight: 615.3kg
Power:weight ratio: 245.7hp:ton

Hillclimb Time: 159.902

In a table, then:

Madrias · 30 April 2019 05:26

That is… Actually quite unexpected. I figured this was going to be the challenge that showed the Astrion to be painfully slow.

Lava_Cake · 30 April 2019 12:45

Thank god I learned from this not to make my MR cars perform like understeery FR cars lol

Feels weird to see that past tune

Xepy · 30 April 2019 15:11

I like how consistently average my car has performed.

strop · 30 April 2019 16:49

Stage 5 Analysis

I think I’ll just post this first.

When it comes to punching above weight, a striking list forms. It’s no secret that the Tanaka, Ishu, Mitsushita all have excellent traction and turn-in and are quite nimble. The Akuna has excellent traction… but is less nimble. And the Haapala also sneaks up near the top of the order, as well it should for while it had less traction it is particularly nimble. For the most part the big fat chonky AWD cars generally did pretty well considering that I had to back off a lot just to squeeze them through the narrow streets.

The bottom half is… well, pretty much as expected. In this case I would say nothing which scored a ratio delta of above -1 had any fundamental issues with the setup.

Next will come a side by side comparison of all the values, and hopefully an overall consideration of how cars performed, both objective and subjective. After that, I will be able to tell you which 5 cars I’ll be featuring in a video review!

Edit: not a big enough reveal yet, so just an edit. Here are all the times of entries arranged by username.

There’s only one blue square, because that was an outlier of outliers. Not surprisingly it happened on Mount Glorious. Otherwise for the most part the results were pretty linear. This table will only show trends within each entry, of course, and their approximate overall performance, and whether there were any aberrations. That in turn gives a slight indication of each car’s strengths and weaknesses.

Obfuscious · 3 May 2019 03:00

Rocinante was faster than expected, not bad for an old horse! I shot myself in the foot on comfort with that build. It started as a fwd trucklet, and grew into nearly what I entered over 15 iterations. Then I discovered my comfort rating was at (or below) 0, and had to soften the suspension quite a bit (it was nearly due and I didn’t have time for another fresh build…). It was actually more composed over the bumps in Italy with the stiffer setup. Some surprising results, especially the downhill given R’s 80/20 weight split! I figured I’d be slower on the faster tracks, too.

strop · 3 May 2019 04:08

Stage 5 Analysis Continued

Now comes the next part, which obviously would be putting all the relative performance indicators together. I calibrated them to be roughly commensurate (not a perfect measure I know) so I simply averaged out all 5 rounds and here you have it.

There are many ways of crumbling this cookie, of course, and this doesn’t tell the whole story, but purely with regards to the actual versus expected performance I can use the following table to comment:

So I’ll go from lowest to highest:

BCT T1001S 525TS– no grip, super laggy turbo. Did have speed and was AWD hence not completely last in everything
Ponni Pistero - RS– sharp as a razor balanced on the tip of a needle. More grip would solve a lot of things
Nohda Strato (82) Super Strato Turbo (87)– RR and widebody on a super short wheelbase makes bad time
JHW Lynx S5– also not enough grip. With more grip the gearing could be shorter and it’d probably shoot up the rankings
Stelvio O-56– very interesting handling set which suited some conditions more than others, plus a horrible power curve
Pulsar Defiant– not significantly different from the Strato except softer suspension, which made it harder in some places, easier in others…
Petrov Ferro Coupe– not impossibly difficult to drive, just not designed to go fast
Rocinante– the only reason this is so far down the list is because it’s in outlier territory as far as power:weight is concerned. And also the fact it has a trailer bed for a rear end made it hard to turn tight corners
Polski Bomba Street– The lightest car in the lineup had to work hard to overcome the inherent difficulties of its layout as presented by the Pulsar and the Nohda and mostly got there but it had to do a lot
Iserim Sol– slow and not grippy and FWD which masked some subtle balance issues uncovered on the downhill
Cyanide Motors 1982 Terrier - S1– Seemed like it was good to throw around but some caution was required when the tail-happy characteristics got out of hand…
Geschenk Gato– It had some more heft than its weight let on due to unusually soft sway bars, if not for the downhill this may have gone largely unnoticed
Scarab Nova GT-X26– The biggest, most powerful car was built to be the fastest, which in general it was, when it actually fit on track…
Bradford Vector R– A deft touch was required to pilot this machine, but when it came together it was pretty on-par
Matteo Miglia Legatus– razor sharp handling meant going from grip to complete understeer at the drop of a hat. More power than it probably should have had in 1983 to be honest
Kuma SU Si Coupe (2+2)– a bit too much power for the tyres, a bit too long and heavy to take full advantage of the FF drivetrain, but if driven within limits it could haul some ass
G&W Stamford 85– being slow and soft worked in its favour on this metric, being one of the easiest cars to keep on the (not very high) limit
Kettenblitz 950QD– this car was tuned to be pretty competent but also was one of those where there was a very fine line between good grip and one-wheel peel
Jade-Gemin GLX– a surprisingly high finish for the car on actually realistic rubber (which was on average thinner, taller and medium compound). Probably because it had good control and not as much power
Shromet Interval GTS– tuned to be quite neutral, it’s not so much the performance as its handling and the communication that this car truly excels. Would have been a few places up if the brakes didn’t melt so much
Kitanishi Fleuris SP2000– A solid AWD, the “sensible cousin” so to speak. Not overly competitive but also won’t bite your head off
Toreer Sommet 250S– a bigger car trapped in a smaller body with a smaller engine, aside from some bugs from the suspension and ride height it was a solid handler
Akuna Sprinter HF– the chief advantage here was mid-corner grip thanks to loose front sway bars and wide tyres. Horrendous at sudden direction changes and accelerating past 3rd
TX7 B6– the ultra muted handling does make it very easy to throw around even in challenging conditions
Haapala CupSport Streetlegal– light and well balanced, like a punchy FWD should be
Smooth Notsomuch– an unusual experiment that worked beautifully. Contrary to the name, it was in fact very smooth
Armor Cricket GT4– the little AWD that could, it really excelled at almost everything
Marquez CDD SWS 270i6– the big surprise package of the lot, FWD bias actually improved its turn-in if driven to match
FM Cerberus Track– sharp, precise and grippy, the low-rider squad can rep it even in somewhat harsher conditions
Ishu Astrion 700T– the little mouse roars the loudest? Largely got away with the funky suspension tune because it’s so light and can be thrown around extra hard, so carried some ludicrous speed in the corners
Fuji RMS GTR Homologation– the other low-rider squad member, taking nearly maximum advantage of its drivetrain. Shame about the brakes
Mitsushita Jesta Baleno TCS– this is the embodiment of old-style FWD tuner. Supremely engaging
Tanaka Aventis (4th Gen) - 2.0 TR (3DR)– goes extra lengths to get the nose in. Huge extra lengths, because that nose really goes in
Matteo Miglia Excelsior Rosso Corsa– I would have said this proves FR can be up there but that’s mainly because the tyres were really fat. So is the car for that matter.
Armada Motors Fore Gen II Eagle GTi– This was ~~SPARTAAAAAAAAAAA~~ sheer madness. I was expecting this to be a factory release? Fastest in 3 tests, 2nd in one, and it takes an extra 100-130hp to actually beat it on the speed track?

Note again that these are only impressions based on the car performance. They will have some but far from the most bearing on how I assess the cars overall, and therefore which ones I review in a video… more on that within the next 24 hours! (and no I’m not reviewing my own cars lmao only if there’s time to add in a “tips and tricks” section)

AirJordan · 3 May 2019 20:06

I can’t believe my car is still in the running! Not that anyone falls out but you know… I have expected that my wheels were just to rubbery or something

Joke aside, Strop the is all super informative and we are getting a lot out of this. i’m really enjoying it. Kudos!

CC9020 · 3 May 2019 20:38

whenever strop looks at my car:

b r a k e m a c h i n e b r o k e

Madrias · 3 May 2019 23:53

For a car I did that was designed literally to use parts I almost never used in UE4, I’m surprised. The Astrion literally started as “Let’s use options and parts I don’t use often, and really step outside of my comfort zone.” So because I hadn’t, to that point, used T-FWD (I since have, and actually in a lore car), I used T-FWD. I’m not comfortable with small turbo engines, so I made a 700cc turbo I3 because I was then forced way out of my comfort zone. (Otherwise, I may have whacked in a 2.6 liter I4 in a different body.) Then I used the fixtures I used the least, making a “perpetually smiley” car (which initially I didn’t like, but it grew on me) because I figured if I was going this far, I was going all the way.

The only thing I wish I’d done differently, so far, would be to not have used that particular yellow-orange metallic, and instead should have used my light-purple metallic. The color just had to match the car: Obnoxious.