[LHC] - Letara History Challenge - Rd 5 [Results being posted]

I haven’t seen any explicit mention of semi-slick tires for this round either - but I will only submit my race car submission with them equipped if I am actually allowed to do so. Otherwise, I will go with sports compound tires, as fitted to the road car trim.

As for the race car I am planning to enter, it barely squeaks in comfort-wise with a rating of 20.4 - I managed this by fitting a basic cassette player (to simulate a radio/intercom for communicating with the pitwall).

By the way, the road car can manage a 6:14.93 lap time at Lerance in its current form - again fast enough to qualify, but only just. For comparison, after further tweaks to the race car, it can now manage 6:04.07 (a 0.15 second improvement) on semi-slicks.

I can see how comparing the consumer car rules regarding race components (and their ban) from round 2 to round 5 can be a bit confusing. So here is some clarification.

In round two I added a list of race components to specifically ban certain items that don’t have ‘race’ in their name, including semi-slicks. This was done for Letara lore reasons (tire availability was in a flux at the time with the advent of radials and such).

Since round 3 there has been no mention of semi-slicks in the consumer car rules, so they have been allowed. Probably not the wisest choice for a road car, but allowed nonetheless. This round too, the only components banned under the ‘no race components’ category are items actually labelled with the word ‘race’, including for example race intakes, race exhausts, and the new race interior. So, be my guest, use those semi-slicks! :slight_smile:


Thank you for clarifying - abolishing the ban on semi-slick tires from LHC3 onwards makes sense given that they are, for all practical purposes, street-legal trackday tires (and not dedicated full slick race tires, which are not road legal).

1 Like

Is it realistic for a car company to join in this late in the game, especially an import-based Japanese one?

It has always been free to join whenever you want AFAIK.

Perfect, that’s good to know

It would be good to know whether this taillight setup is legal, if you exclude the fact it has no third brake light and the middle part of the red light is the taillight and the outside part is the brake light.

I just didn’t completely understand the wording of the taillight rules, just want to make sure i’m not missing anything


can you still able to submit the race car

I believe as long as the brake and tail lights illuminate different parts of the light fixtures it should be legal.

Without seeing what lights up I cannot make a judgment. If by “middle part” you mean between the reverse lights, then no, it would not be legal as the lights do need to be separated and closer to the corner of the car. If both tail and brake lights are outside the reverse lights, then it’s ok.

Okay, so here’s actually a question I have on lights. Does the glass count as a separate bulb for lighting purposes? If it doesn’t, I practically plead for you to interpret as if it does, because it just looks so much better

My tail and brake lights if I can make my light internals act as brake lights (right), and my light glass as taillights (center)

My rear light setup if I have to actually have separate light internals turn on for both tail and brake lights (tails lit center, brakes lit right)

To answer @MoteurMourmin, the third brake light rule represents the “high-mounted center brake light” rule enacted in most countries IRL. In real life, there is a light mounted either on top of the rear fascia or inside the rear window that basically enhances other motorists’ ability to see that you’re braking. See picture below: You need at least a three-brake light setup like that, two on the sides and one on the middle. I don’t think the rules of this challenge explicitly make you place the brake light up high, though.

As for taillights, you need two: one for each corner. They supposedly have to be separate from the brake lights; Whether my proposal passes is one matter, but we know from previous rounds that they can be in the same housing as the corner brake lights as long as different internal parts light up.

Technically the upper example would not be allowed because the rules require two separate bulbs in the same housing (ie., instead of a lighting-up glass housing you’d have to 3D a second red bulb into the fitting) - but functionally it’s basically the same, as long as the cover glass that lights up is transparent, so you still see the underlying bulb light up when the glass housing is lit… if that makes sense.

So - since the functionality is mostly what I care about, the top example would be allowed and I’ll pretend that the ‘lighting-up glass housing’ is a stand-in for the second bulb. But only if the glass remains transparent, so you can still see when the underlying bulb lights up regardless of the illumination state of the cover glass. But if the illuminating cover glass is not transparent (ie the reflective material) so you don’t see the functionality of the underlying bulb, or I don’t see a difference when the underlying bulb is lit, or the cover glass is waaaay too dim when lit to be seen, then I reserve the right to call shenanigans on it. In other words, if you’re confident that visually the functionality of the brake and rear lights is visible in all four states (break/tail off; brake on, tail off; brake off, tail on; both on), then I’ll overlook the ‘missing’ second bulb. But I can’t comment on specific cases because each glass material behaves differently, so I’d have to see the car during judging to say for sure. Hope that helps!

1 Like

Hmm, what I’m getting is that the brake on/tail on and the brake on/tail off states look basically the same - as they would on an actual car that uses this setup - but the rest are clearly distinct.

What’s the call on that?

Would there be room for me to start out only now? If so, what are some tips for this challenge?

The call is that the four states need to look distinct as what we’re going for is the look/functionality of two distinct bulbs in the same housing. Doing it with the cover glass illuminating may be harder to accomplish, but it’ll permit it if it works. That’s me trying to be as lenient as possible - by allowing a minor case of make-believe as long as the visual functionality remains the same. Having two separate bulbs in the same housing will always be the safest bet.

@MoteurMourmin @icrafter @ScintillaBeam

Yes, you may join in the series at any round, and you may submit to any one or two or all three categories (consumer, government, race). Just make sure you read both the OP and the specific round rules so you adhere to all pertinent rules both in terms of LHC logistics (registering your company, DM rules, car naming convention etc) and the specific car rules for each category.

1 Like

1989 Wolfram Warlord 5.0 V12 GTS and GTR

Wolfram’s first-ever supercar (and also its first-ever mid-engined car) burst onto the scene in 1989 in two forms: as a street-legal flagship GT car with luxury trimmings, and as a track-focused, race-ready homologation special for the newly inaugurated 100-lap endurance race at the recently redesigned Lerance Raceway.

The base model weighed 1252kg and was powered by an all-alloy 430-bhp 5.0-liter V12 driving the rear wheels via a five-speed manual gearbox. Along with a CD player, other innovations included adjustable adaptive dampers and a flat floor for improved aerodynamics. In stock form, it could reach 60 mph from a standstill in 3.6 seconds and top out at 202 mph, while recording a 200m cornering figure of 1.09g on high-performance tires (225/40 R18 front, 285/35 R18 rear) wrapped around 18-inch forged alloy wheels housing vast vented disc brakes (4-piston 375mm units up front and 2-piston 355mm units at the rear) - the latter allowing for a 60-0 mph braking distance of just 33m.

The GTR (a derivative of the base GT) jettisoned most of the donor car’s creature comforts to save weight (83kg, to be exact), and had a more highly tuned engine developing 450 bhp (the maximum allowed by the regulations), as well as an aerodynamically sculpted undertray for more downforce - up to 40kg at the rear (again, the maximum value allowed by the regulations). With a close-ratio gearbox and retuned suspension (including a lower ride height), its performance was improved to the point that it recorded a sub-6:17 second lap time at Lerance Raceway on sports compound tires - more than enough to qualify.

Interior view comparison

The GTS interior (above) is more luxurious and lavishly appointed than that of the GTR (below), which is more spartan and businesslike.

Dyno sheet comparison

The GTR (below) has only 20 more horsepower and 5 lb-ft more torque than the GT (above), but when combined with the handling mods and weight reduction, it makes for a very effective track package (on paper at least).

The Warlord GTS had a base pre-tax price of $40,000 AMU when new (right on the luxury tax minimum threshold), which put it out of reach of all but the fortunate few - but those who bought them were rewarded with an outstanding driving experience, especially if they drove them as their maker intended. The GTR was a no-cost option, but in exchange for most creature comforts, you got a far sharper driving tool.

Wolfram decided to campaign the GTR for the 1989 Lerance GT-Endurance race - it may not have been the most affordable entry, but it was undoubtedly the most powerful. How will they fare in the first season? Only time will tell.


New Company Registration:

Hikaru Heavy Industries (光 株 式 会 社 Hikaru Kabushiki Gaisha)

Country of Origin - Japan

Sub-Brands - None

A bit of lore for anyone that cares:

Hikaru Heavy Industries was founded in Sapporo, Hokkaido in 1958 by a 25 year old Kaicho (title) Yuiichi Hikaru out of a small garage his family ran. The company spent its early days gathering influence in the region, setting up relationships with resource providers and of course having a few talks with their local government wing about providing financial support.

It was only in 1964 that they released their first car, a small economy coupe. Seeing around him the trend among Japanese car makers of giving their cars Western names, the Kaicho decided he’d spit in their faces and give his car a quintessentially Japanese name, one that held spirit and had a bit of kick to it.

On that day, the Hikaru Katana BCT V1 was born.

Hikaru would hit relatively immediate success not only in Hokkaido but in the surrounding prefectures with their car, for it was said to have a good blend of economy and fun, a surprising statement given how anemic the engine was at that point.

They’d begin reaching into the family segment, and as the 70s began, they had even started to become serious with their utility vehicles too, developing a ute. Through this expansion, they gained immense expertise in appealing to a distinctly Japanese consumer base.

With all this in mind, you’d think that the Kaicho still had his sights firmly set on the big leagues, but his heart was still set on one thing. As the world entered the 80s, a thought had begun to spring in the Kaicho’s mind. Could his golden child, the ever-loved Katana series be loved by anyone outside of Japan? It was an ambitious goal, to say the least, but it was one he was willing to strive for.

In his eyes, the greatest challenge would be sellling his golden child in Letara, a market famous for cut-throat lobbyists and stringent regulations, far removed from Japan’s relatively lax attitudes. He couldn’t convert the current 1980 model year Katana for the Letaran market, but could he do it with the next generation? He set to work, working late nights, determined. Would he manage it? It was in the hands of God to decide.


1984, in an alleyway outside a Hikaru Dealership just outside Sapporo…

Customer: I am allowed to be hearing this, right? This isn’t secret internal info, is it?

Dealer Representative: Well, it’s different between longtime friends, right? Well, do you want to hear it?

Customer: Yeah, go on!

Dealer Rep. : Okay, so we’ve been hearing about Hikaru’s new car right, the Katana. Turns out they’re thinking of sending it outside of the homeland… they’re going to be trying their luck in Letara of all places!

Customer: No way. No-one over there would buy it! Doesn’t everyone in Letara want big hungry V-shape engines? I swear, you work for some pretty strange people.

Dealership Rep. : Well, that’s not all the news, I have a photograph of the car. It’s really bad because I didn’t have time to adjust the exposure before I took it, but i’m sure you can guess what she’ll look like, right? Hikaru’s a bit of a one-trick pony in that regard…

Customer: Stop rambling and show me! Really keeping me on edge here…

Dealership Rep. : Here you go then…

The all-new Hikaru Katana, coming to Letara in 1985!

Hikaru - Performance made simple.



The fourth generation of this sporty premium midsize car breaks with all previous generations. Front-wheel drive. A styling dictated by the laws of physics. More standard features (the 180 GL already comes with four power windows as well as ABS) and maximum efficiency.
Not more than four cylinders turn this spacious car into a hot machine (if you opt for a 200 model, but the 180 already offers impressive performance for how lean on fuel it is)!

The 180 GL is the car you get to know when you take part in the ADVANCED DRIVER PROGRAM sponsored by Primus for the Letaran ministry of traffic and transport. It aims at all that have a license, but are not experienced behind the wheel and wish to be trained for emergency situations. Beginners, elders and women are strongly encouraged to call for more information. Please note: This program is limited until december 30, 1987, but with the almost three-year span, you will get a chance if you wish.

Professional race drivers might be not in need of this unique program. Primus also introduces the 1985 Ares - if Letaran racing returns to old glory, this will surely be our choice for a works team.

Well, and you already know this one. I only turned it visually into a Letara-Spec model. that´s it.