Yes, the market price at 0% mark up.
Thank you for highlighting that. After testing I’ve come up with a scoring system. I should detail it (principle stays the same).
Basically:
per class: 10-8-6-4-3-2-1 points for best time
per class: 10-8-6-4-3-2-1 points for best relative value [calculated via (base number - time)/price]; so the fastest time for the cheapest car gets the most points.
between classes: points given above, in case of draw, fastest time wins.
Giusseppe il Bastardo di Ferrari assembled a rag-tag racing team to help promote his fledgling automobile company. For races, he would travel with 2 race built versions of his G220 Roadster. These differed from the production version, in that they were built on a space frame chassis, and were tuned for rapid acceleration (although quite cheaply made). He entered the Corso di Fruinia, with the hopes that people would see the Giusseppe brand, and buy his cars. While registering, he noticed that there was a category for cars with 799 cc and smaller engines. He told his engineer, Inigo, to hold his spot in line. He purchased a motorcycle from a local shop, and entered the team’s backup car, as #798. He took the 798cc V twin motor from the cycle, but had trouble mating it to the car’s transmission. He modified it, so that the engine headers laid flat, creating a box 4 engine. With 2 cars entered, the Giusseppe team looked like this:
#220
Driver> Francisco Martino … Fruinia
Mechanic> Giovanni Rizzo … Fruinia
#798
Driver> Giusseppe il Bastardo di Ferrari … Italy
Engineer> Inigo Montoya … Spain
Following the warm reception of the 1951 Minnie in Latin America, Wisconsin Motors built their first factory in Querataro, Mexico and was considering expanding their lineup in these and other foreign markets. To build prestige and brand awareness, the AeroMouse (RatonAereo) would be their next product, albeit with an engine lineup more conducive to foreign tax laws. The 1952 Corso di Fruinia was a great opportunity to test these new drivetrains on real roads, under the stresses of racing. It was also an opportunity to test and further refine their planned Carrera Panamerica entries. The AeroMouse pioneered WM’s use of a longitudinal fwd layout, a technology that would go on to be used on other WM small car models in the 1950’s. The Carrera Panamerica cars feature a 4WD system adapted from the larger Angler edition Earl, and would go on to compete in Baja racing as well.
RatonAereo #654 is powered by a prototype thin wall Hurricane triple, which would be introduced in a slightly larger form in 1955. This example measues 799cc.
RatonAereo #657 is powered by an experimental boxer 6,known around the shop as the “ProtoPancake”, based on Hurricane internals and valvegear it’s essentially two horizontally opposed triples.
AeroMouse Panamerica #694 is being fielded by Kohlberg Co, another Wisconsin manufacturer under the Cheesehead Holdings banner. It’s powered by a 2.2L flat four adapted from their industrial lawnmower. Conversion to OHV from its previous sidevalve arrangement was engineered by WM.
AeroMouse Panamerica #53140 uses a Meyers OHV V8-60 sourced from a California hot rod shop. This is the chassis currently being developed for the Carrera Panamerica.
AeroMouse Panamerica #53142 is a privateer entry, based on the Panamerica car but fitted with a 303cid Oldsmoburble Rocket V8.
Built by brothers Damien and Morgan Bowen, this little sports coupé is their first step into the automotive world. The car uses the engine and gearbox from a wrecked Wolseley 6/80 they managed buy for cheap, and features a hand-crafted aluminium body on a ladder frame chassis. While it may be down on power compared to the competition, the brothers are confident that the carefully tuned handling will be more than enough to compensate.
Morgan Bowen: The older brother, and the most mechaincally inclined. Did most of the mechanical design and was the one who tracked down the power plant. Will be the navigator.
Damien Bowen: The younger brother, and the most skilled driver. Drove their car to several podiums in local hillclimb events prior to the rally and worked tirelessly to fine-tune the handling. Will be the driver.
#28 Bowen mk1 2200 Prototype '52
(pictures coming soon 
)
Engine:
Modified Morris OHC inline-6: ported and polished cylinder heads; re-sleeved cylinders reducing displacement from 2215cc to 2155cc, reground camshaft, re-cast pistons to accommodate smaller bore and raise compression; custom intake manifold with triple single-barrel carburettors; stainless steel tubular exhaust headers.
Drivetrain:
Modified Morris 4-speed manual with custom gear ratios, open differential.
Chassis:
Ladder frame steel with double a-arms up front, four-link coil-sprung solid axle rear, aluiminium body.
The LSVRT team
798cc LSV Mark RS (Race Special)
Unlike the normal model the rs model has a beefier engine and a added horizontal grille to provide more cooling.
1398cc LSV Mark '‘Nuts’n’Bolts’'
This Mark model is based on the RS Mark, but this special edition was built within a short period of time so most of the car was assembled with visible bolts to save time and resources.
The 1952 Meijer Azure 1398cc #869
Stats:
0-100 km/h: 15,9 s
100-0 km/h: 52,6 m
Top speed: 146 km/h
Weight: 913 kg
Engine: 1398 cc 68 hp S82 12P-RDF
History:
The 1952 Azure 1398cc was purposely build for the 800cc to 1399cc class of the 1952 Rally di Fruinia. The design team went through several engine design but ended up with a reliable enough pushrod V12 making 68hp.
Download:
Meijer Azure - 1398cc.car (21.4 KB)
More info: Old Meijer Thread (Mods please delete) - #10 by TheAlmightyTwingo
BAM is entering the Rally with three cars, all in almost unchanged production spec in order to prove the sporty yet robust designs. The first ever model, the Paginza, is starting with two different engine configurations: the 2.0 liter and the 2.8 liter inline 6 engines. The Regana obviously is no contender for a win, coming with very heavy and luxurious interior and the large 4.0 liter engine. But it probably has one of the most relaxed drivers inside.
#620 BAM Paginza 620 CS
#628 BAM Paginza 628 C
#640 - BAM Regana 640
The Cisalpina light sports car shed of course takes part in the event on their home turf. Two cars are entered: The first Cisalpina ever from 1950, the 1.4 liter Tipo 50, and the very nimble follow-up model from 1952, the Superleggera 750, which is starting in the smallest class.
The cars are deemed to be sporty enough, so no special preparation for the race has been done.
#50 - Cisalpina Tipo 50
#750 - Cisalpina Superleggera 750
me: * sees that BAM are entering *
me:
Well, here it goes - Eagle Motors (probably soon to be renamed) enters the competition. While right now I don’t have enough time nor cars to establish full lore, I think it’s a good time to at least write about some basics. My company generally focuses on building light sports cars with FF layout and small, high-revving inline engines. As you will soon see, there are some exceptions to that.
#212 - Eagle 202 (class 1400cc to 2199cc)
#102 - Eagle 102 (class below 799cc)
#112 - Eagle 112E (class 800cc to 1399cc)
#802 - Eagle 802 (class above 3300cc)
That is all. While Eagle Motors has small chances for a high place in the leaderboard, the company’s engineers hope that all the cars will at least behave as planned and described above.
I cannot say I’m pleased with the unrealistic overabundance of front-wheel drive cars and the occasional 4x4 in 1952 in general. I do have some sympathy for those who have made an effort to fit it into their lore or to have a plausible backstory.
@Elektrycerz, Eagle 102 is a plausible backstory. Eagle 802… not.
Anyway, it’s not prohibited. But do understand that while FR cars will be driven carefully for obvious reason, if you give me a car min-maxxed to be idiot-proof, chances are I will drive it like an idiot.
4x4 =/= AWD.
4x4 is RWD until it is shifted into low range, then it becomes “AWD.”
But with this “AWD” mode, there is no power split, it’s 50:50 no matter what. But in a scenario racing like this, 4x4 adds nothing but pointless weight to a car.
Basically, you’re all missunderstanding what 4x4 actually is.
It adds tons of grip and traction in BeamNG on dirt roads compared to rear-wheel drive only cars, that’s what it adds. Though on paved roads, you’re better off with an RWD car (with decent weight balance and suspension tuning).
I don’t think they have a real advantage, but I did get mildly triggered by designs where the drive train has no historical or lore-related reason to be like that.
@Private_Miros well, I don’t think that 802’s power output is totally implausible for 1952. Btw, i made a mistake in my previous post (will edit soon) - 102 actually has RWD.
As for FWD cars, I don’t really care what is „historical” in our world. I’m roleplaying as an owner of a fictional company in a fictional world. And I do what I think is best, not what was historically used. Back then people didn’t really know what’s the optimal car design do they were experimenting with everything. My cars are also experiments - each of them is built in a different way with different things in mind. And because of that, they are surely neither boring nor minmaxed.
May I enquire into how you came to that conclusion? was it two entirely different cars, or the same car with RWD and 4x4 swapped in with no changes?
Because this has me thinking that maybe the 4x4 translation from automation to beam is possibly wrong. The added grip should only come on in Low Range
4x4 in BeamNG is just a fixed 25% power for each wheel. And also, handbtake locks the front wheels.
Well that doesn’t seem right at all. 4x4 without the 4x4 selected should send all power to the rear wheels. Only when 4x4 mode is engaged should power do that.
I know, but it doesn’t in Beam. I feels very much like 50-50 all the time when driving, regardless of the car - and not in low range.
You can manually disengage the 4x4 and only send power to the rear axle. Perhaps I should do this, unless I switch to low range, for 4x4 entries.
(Though with decent motivation, I might still accept submissions on the 31st itself if they are worth it, that will be an arbitrary judgement, live with it. No submissions at all accepted after the the 31st.)
Disabling 4WD is generally disadvantageous, unless you’re some sort of RWD powerslide wizard. Still, pure RWD is cheaper and lighter. You said that you will be trying to achieve the best time possible with each car. So I think that you should stick with it, because disabling 4WD generally sounds like „I don’t want your car to win so I will weaken it in some way”.
Unless, as I said, you feel that you will be faster with just RWD (I doubt it, but who am I to judge).
Well, no. It’s that 4x4 in beam is not realistic. a 4x4 system should not be sending power to all wheels unless its Low Range in enabled. A low range box will limit the top speed of the engine for better offroading
Unless you’re confusing AWD with 4x4.
