[size=150]So… the current situation was not something that I… expected.
Due to things like exams that I also didn’t expect, I didn’t have much time to go through your entries. After the update, most of your engines do not work for some reason or another, and seeing as I will be away from my PC for the next two weeks I don’t see much point in asking you for re-submissions. I guess I’m going to just cancel this challenge. It’s annoying for me as well as it is for you, because believe it or not I put effort into initially organising the event.
This was my second challenge, and is also my second failed challenge. IF I end up doing another one (unlikely at this point), I promise that it will get finished.
I am generally one that is not picky about rules but these restrictions will lead to every car being similar in almost every way, the only difference will be if people choose OHC or OHV and the OHV will almost always loose in this case so why pick it? Why should the base model have 4 wheel discs, a LSD and medium compound tires? That defeats the point of a base model by adding higher tier items. Same with your EFI restriction, the base model could probably have carbs while the higher models have progressively better EFI, a LOT of Japanese cars/trucks had carbs in the early 90s why not the base?
Also you should state WHICH fuel instead of a octane number, 91 in one measurement is something in another, it is better to just state “Premium” or “Regular” instead (I hate constantly switching my options around).
So those are just my .02, I DO plan on entering but just had to get my opinion out there.
I don’t mind you being picky about rules at this stage. This stage is all about ironing out issues.
You must think about other things, when it comes to the valvetrain. Sure, making the car go as fast as possible is good, but things like DOHC will affect costs a lot. This is what makes this challenge more difficult, you have to think about a wide variety of things.
How about this?:
91 Octane Regular Unleaded Fuel
For the base and premium models, you are required to have minimum front disc brakes of some kind and rear drum brakes. The sport model must use 4 wheel disc brakes.
The base and premium models are permitted to use any differential, the sport model must have an LSD.
Also, should I put a cost restriction in place? If so, what is a reasonable limit for each model?
Either a restriction on costs or assign costs a value in the scoring. That keeps things a bit fair since a cheap car will suffer in other areas while an expensive car, while great, will suffer due to a cost penalty, just like your DOHC example.
As for the brakes I wouldnt put a limit on what CANT be used just leave that up to the designer, the base model COULD have 4 wheel disc or rear drum, it is up to the designer on what they would like but the sport model restriction is ok IMO. Same with the LSD, that is a good choice.
As for costs I would have to make a couple iterations of the cars to see where mine would fall since I am not sure. Also are you going to value service costs? If so which region? I would assume if this is for a future used car it would be in the most expensive group since the kid wants to turbo it
Ok, I’ll assign costs a value in the scoring then, it should deter people from making billion dollar hyper-Miatas.
Also, yes, I will value service costs. I’ll do it in Gasmea because that seems to be the most first-world region. We’ll use the sport-budget class.
Okay my .02s this looks super fun and I will enter no matter what.
That said if I recall the miata body has a convertible, a hard top, and a coupe as well as the s2000 body type all as chassis variants, which of them are allowed?
Don’t go overboard on the restrictions, even the NA miatas had aluminum hoods, maybe have a environmental resistance minimum that we can choose how to reach. Same with tires and disc brakes, I’d much rather see minimum stat scores to be achieved through skill and tuning than just “you must use these parts only.”
You may use any variants, I don’t think the different variants affect too many stats (that might be wrong).
While of course letting people have more freedom with their parts will encourage creativity and make it more competitive, it’s a lot of work for me already as it is because I have to go through each of the models and check that they comply with all of the rules. I’ll loosen up a couple of the rules, but I’m not going to do too many changes in that aspect.
I don’t know if letting people choose what materials to use is a good thing, because there aren’t any cost restrictions and people could just make carbon fiber bodies which would dominate all of the races which will earn them a fair few points. For now, I’ll keep that rule as it is unless someone can think of a better way to go about it.
You said you’re using the sport budget class for service costs right? Why not take that class’s average budget and set a 0% profit market limit of affordability at say 50% or better? That let’s you put a cap on spending and allows us a lot of freedom to meet it.
Well your affordability score is shown in the In the market tab right under the desirability score. If you want to know the actual amount you can click the list view in the upper right side and it will display the average budget in each category in the first column.
same here, i really dont agree to cost restriction.
also for fuel delivery system. i agree with blaster… just lift the restriction.
it’s an area of compromise
carb is cheap to built and cheap to maintain, but efficiency will suffer.
multi point EFI is still relatively new to the era and thereby expensive, but a significant higher efficiency would be the result.
single point is just the middle ground between the two.
(also, these part are something you wont need to check for. just 1 slight less rule check for you isnt it?)
also with mufflers. isn’t it better to set a loudness limit? a noisy engine will still be noisier even with double reverse flow
chassis material should also be free. iirc, the chassis of the NA/NB miata was also made from pure steel.
although, ‘no carbon fibre’ rules are also reasonable
btw. i had a similiar idea for this kinda competition, both RL testing+ raced cars… just not as specific as yours.
and you beat me to it.
I think this challenge will need a quite strict Cost limit, otherwise someone who uses a lot of quality will win in many areas over other people.
You said that loosening the regulations would cause you more work. That statement doesn’t make sense. The fewer rules there are, the fewer checks you have to make, which, in turn, allows both greater freedom for us and less time spent with scrutineering for you.
Regarding using the markets, I think they aren’t the best idea, especially the budget section, because those have a very limited budget, designed around the idea that most people on a budget will go for a second hand car. Why bother with those people in a new car simulation is beyond me, but that is how all the budget groups are set up.
Also, you might want to prohibit people from using advanced safety, or negative sliders on safety, as the car can become a lot lighter, with no safety penalty and a small difference in costs, if negative quality advanced safety is used.
I’ll change the market budget number thing to be reasonable if need be, I’m using the markets because I don’t want to have to pull unreasonable numbers out of my ass. Regarding fuel system rules and sliders and stuff, I’ll redefine the rules in the OP in a few hours when I have time.
