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 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.
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.
On an unrelated side note, Today we are the 30th. Submissions closing in 12 hours.
(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
4x4 / 4WD = part-time systems that have to be in 2WD mode on pavement, unless you like destroying your drivetrain. When engaged in 4H, there should be a 50/50 fixed power split front-rear. It should only be 25% to each wheel if it’s engaged AND has some sort of locking/LSD differential.
“Full time 4WD” (which is a marketing thing, and very much a misnomer) is actually an AWD system. It has a center differential and is capable of (and is, in fact, always) running while engaged on pavement. Depending on the system, this can have either variable power transfer, or a fixed split, which doesn’t necessarily have to be 50/50.
So realistically, the 4WD should be disengaged for any course legs that have any pavement at all. Because otherwise, IRL, you would rip your transmission and differentials to pieces trying to race a car on pavement with it engaged.
Which exactly why I consider a sports car 1952 with 4x4 that abuses the fact that in BeamNG 4x4 is 50-50 AWD is a submission that is 1) unrealistic; 2) an unfair advantage.
A simple solution is to disengage the front drive shaft in BeamNG (which you can) do, for all sections of the Corso that aren’t steep/slow enough for the car to drive in low range gearbox mode; basically making the cars a heavier RWD car.
So basically you’re changing the rules because you forgot that 4x4 exists and some people may use it. Had I known that a week earlier, I would have made a totally different car for class 3300+
Where are you getting that info from?
Even if it’s really unrealistic… rules should not be changed or altered during the competition. Personally, I care much more about my FWD cars than the 4x4 one, but maybe there are people who installed 4x4 in all of their cars and converting them to RWD will hurt their performance.
My competitions are mostly meant to be roleplayed and have a high influence of randomness attached to them. I keep rules simple, but I highly appreciate submissions that aren’t made with the sole intent of abusing the system to score better.
That 4x4 sports car is the first submission of its kind and the first one that causes this issue. It’s about fairness towards those submissions that are made realistically.
If general consensus is that a good solution would be to disengage 4x4 in Beam on pavement, I will rerun those few 4x4 submissions under the same circumstances as yours. Also these cars are using more trucklike bodies, with a more typical offroad engine - and therefore didn’t drive at speeds where the advantage matters.
I understand how 4x4 works. But you should understand that adding or changing rules after someone’s submission is kinda… a dick move. Still, if my 802 really bothers you much, you can just leave it (let’s say it broke down before the start). I like your event and don’t want to be „that guy”, but I hope that next time you will establish some clear rules on what types of cars you don’t want. And I hope you’ll drive my 202 like you stole it.
Submitting the 802 like that and then arguing about it makes YOU “that guy”. And if you understand how 4WD works, you wouldn’t have put it in a car destined for said 1950’s road race. It shouldn’t have to be spelled out that 4WD doesn’t have any place in a 1950’s road race. Not only is it totally impractical for the application, it’s absolutely against the spirit of the challenge. Not EVERY rule should have to be written. There should be some common sense applied.
Understands how 4x4 works
Doesn’t understand why the host want’s to use 4x4 the way it should be used
If you understand how 4x4 works then you should understand why the rules are so. He hasn’t changed the rules in any way because thats how 4x4s work. You should have known this going in.
That’s not entirely true, and I do understand @Elektrycerz’s reaction. Though I hope he understands that I notice when a submission stands out from other submissions in a way that warrants discussions, and that is not something personal towards him.
However, I do believe that rules should be flexible as long as the aim of that flexibility is fairness, and any changes are done transparently and in discussion with the people submitting.
