Is this car width or track width (as shown in the car body selector)?
car width
I think there’s around 7 bodies.
Premium 95
Is there a max budget?
Nope, based on past QFCs you can go ham, but that may cause you to go way over the average budget of entries.
1 Like
Since this round is set in 1995, 3-way catalytic converters should be mandatory. Also, for realism’s sake, the maximum cylinder count should be 4 or fewer.
1 Like
For reference, these are what are ‘legal’ bodies in this comp going back 15 in game years (No Mod Bodies):
'87 Euro 2.2m
'85 SUV 2.0m
'83 Bean 1.9m
And these are considered ‘illegal’ bodies:
'97 Edgy 2.1m
'95 Egg 1.9m
'95 Egg 2.2m
'90 Death 2.0m
'84 2.2m
'80 jpn 2.0m
Maybe there is an argument to amend the footprint rules of the cars slightly?
6 Likes
I assume the ‘84 2.2m and the ‘80 JPN body can’t be shortened to 3.3m?
No the bumpers stick out too far, there are a few bodies you can make short enough but they are then too wide. It’s actually width not length that’s the main problem
That equates to 87 mph - a value we can set using the speed limiter in the drivetrain tab.
I don’t think we can reack 400 in emissions without a three way catalytic converter. I’ll add maximum cylinder count of 4.
Yes.
POLE
In order to increase the number of possible bodies, I suggest increasing the maximum length to 3.40m (1980 hatchback, 1980 coupe, 1984 hatchback) and the width to 1.41m (Death 1990 hatchback).
- Yes, that would be better!
- No, we should keep this QFC close to reality.
0
voters
1 Like
In preparation for this round, I have made two test mules with the same engine: an FF hatch and an FR coupe. The former is saner and cheaper, but not quite as fun to drive as the latter. Both of them are well under $20k, though.
Is it TRACK WIDTH or … Width? I’m not finding a body that works that I like with the Width being under 55
It is width, there is currently a vote for increasing required max sizes to include more, needed bodies in the challenge.
If you check the post I made on here, you can see the width of a few bodies that can meet the current requirements.
This was a gentlemen’s agreement, it’s not like anyone took it seriously.
2 Likes
False.
The kei car regulations were revised in March 1990, allowing engines an increase of 110 cc (6.7 cu in) in displacement, and the overall car length to be increased by 100 mm (3.9 in). These changes occurred during the 1990s, and all manufacturers quickly developed new models to suit. Within five months, all the major models of kei cars had switched from 550- to 660-cc engines. For the first time, a power limit was also applied, in addition to the limit on engine size. This power limit of 64 PS matched the highest output reached by any kei manufacturer at the time and was a gentlemen's agreement amongst the manufacturers in an effort to avoid a kei-class horsepower war. Source.
Before 1990, it was an agreement, but after 1990 it was enshrined into law.
3 Likes
I’m for keeping the dimensions realistic but since you are increasing the maximum length to 3.4m, why not increase the maximum width to 1.48m too?
3 Likes
Why not. In this case I should move this challenge forward to 1999 in order to match kei cars regulations. However, at that time “sports” kei cars had almost disappeared.
Interest, I always thought the point of the diligently-followed 64PS limit was to prevent government regulation by preventing a horsepower war; but yeah, further research confirms its actually law.
Though this makes me wonder how the Caterham 7 was able to qualify with 81PS?
It wasn’t if you read this article which is one of the Wikipedia sources.
2 Likes