|
drat close battle we've got going on. 
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:13 |
|
|
Not going to be able to pull into 3rd unless riso takes a dive into a wall or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 07:55
|
|
|
wargames posted:Not going to be able to pull into 3rd unless riso takes a dive into a wall or something. That sounds like a threat!
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Tremek posted:That sounds like a threat! Tonya Harding did nothing wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
I know a guy who knows a guy. just sayin'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Someone go jam a potato into KR Groupe's exhaust pipes. I'm gonna need it if I want to win this thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Someone go jam a potato into KR Groupe's exhaust pipes. I'm gonna need it if I want to win this thing. I tried to pull the fuse for the fuel pump but those TMR tattle tales saw me and said they we're going to have a talk with the FIA
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
VICTORIOUS: KR Groupe Puts an Exclamation Point on an Exceptional Season SUZUKA - KR Groupe took their eighth win of the season this afternoon in a dominant showing, with both their cars crossing the finish line a full two laps ahead of their nearest competitor. CMW Motorsport, who finished 3rd and 4th, was unable to answer the pace set by KR Groupe. Though the Constructor's Championship was almost a foregone conclusion coming into this race, their incredible performance today served as an emphatic reminder of their dominance throughout the SA-GTE season. "First of all, we would like to congratulate our competitors at KR Groupe, they ran a good, clean season and are wholly deserving of their victory," the team principal of CMW Motorsport said in a post-race interview, "I would also like to extend my congratulations to the entire CMW team; their efforts this season are what made this car and this team into a force to be reckoned with on the track." Riso Racing finished in fifth and sixth place, securing third place in the championship standings in doing so. Queen of Dicks ended up just behind the two Riso cars, unable to match the efficiency of their rivals. Aeromaster finished in 9th and 10th place, well ahead of Decimator Green Motion, who finished in 18th and 19th place. In spite of their poor finish in comparison to their rivals, DGM nonetheless held onto the the slimmest of leads in the FF Cup, with 718 points compared to Aeromaster's 712. Further down the field, FatCow Racing finished in 11th and 12th, their consistently good pace slotting them into 5th place in the championship. The #22 Fourth Reich Motorwerks M640i finished in 13th place, with the lead #21 car finishing in 22nd place after on off-track excursion on lap 32 caused some body damage. Turn One Hiros finished in 14th and 15th place, their strongest finish of the season, which was good enough to move them into 9th place in the championship standings over their rival Calais Racing, whose big wagons struggled once again at Suzkuka, finishing in 20th and 21st place. Midsquid finished the race in 16th and 17th place, their strong showing through the last half of the season making up for their uninspiring first half. TMR finished in 23rd and 24th place, making up for their rough outing in Australia last round, but not enough to overtake Phoenix Racing in the standings. FIRST PLACE: #4 KR-Groupe SA-GTE Homologation  SECOND PLACE: #3 KR-Groupe SA-GTE Homologation THIRD PLACE: #10 CMW Motorsport M-GT6B  RACE RESULTS (Click for larger):  FINAL SEASON RESULTS (Click for larger):  FF CUP RESULTS: 1) Decimator Green Motion AeroSTR - 718 points  2) Aeromaster Racing - 712 points  3) Full Frontal - 360 points 4) DrunkMonk Racing - 230 points 5) Skate - 210 points 6) Skree 210 points DRIVER'S CHAMPIONSHIP 1) #4 KR-Groupe 815 pts (wins on number of victories) 2) #3 KR-Groupe 815 pts 3) #9 CMW Motorsport 784 pts 4) #6 Riso Racing 759 pts 5) #10 CMW Motorsport 754 pts 6) #44 Gooncave 702 pts 7) #5 Riso Racing 678 pts 8) #43 Gooncave 627 pts 9) #12 FatCow 465 pts 10) #26 Decimator Green Motion 386 pts
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
I can't believe I was able to keep that lead. Great competition though. Hats off to the Aeromaster team for making it so close.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
Wow, congrats bentai for moving up in the last race of the season! MrChips, thanks for running this! I'm looking forward to fielding a competitive car the next round. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
I'll take third place in the FF Cup for my first crack at an Automation challenge. Keep that mid tier sponsor money coming!
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
Congrats to the podium people, I'm looking forward to the next round when I have more than 45 minutes to tune the suspension and chassis. Had a really good engine with absolutely awful chassis and gearing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
You'll love the LMP challenge then. That is officially happening no matter what. Also I am doing a quick tech analysis of a few of the cars in the championship, so you guys can look under the skin and see what made them as fast as they were. If I don't get any interruptions I might even be able to post it tonight.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
In honor of the last race of the season, I took my real life Calais out to a track and suffered all the ills the SA-GTE one did, which is namely a huge weight penalty on insufficient tires. Also overheating, but apparently the VNA is better off than my -V. Bonus: Blower whine, and laughing at my reaction as the car starts to rotate in a couple corners: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
MrChips posted:You'll love the LMP challenge then. That is officially happening no matter what. Take at look at my car and how it didn't over heat this season even though it 100% should have.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
wargames posted:Take at look at my car and how it didn't over heat this season even though it 100% should have. That's on the list, along with like 20 other things that I want to tweak or redo in the simulation. OK, so here's the tech analysis I've been working on...apologies for the wall of text/pics: SA-GTE, Under the Skin - A Technical Analysis of the Fastest and Most Innovative SA-GTE Entries So now that the dust has settled, we're now going to take a look inside some of the fastest and most creative entries into the SA-GTE championship. From an organiser's point of view, I was pleased to see such a variation in the entries that ran in the series. Granted, Automation doesn't allow totally unlimited development, and the rules did (needfully) constrain things to an extent as well, but we still had a healthy representation of engines, drivetrains and chassis designs, some of which provided some pretty surprising results. In this article, I will take a look at what made some of the more remarkable SA-GTE entries, well, remarkable. Let's start at the top then. THE CHAMP: KR Groupe in Detail  On the surface, the winning entry from Kafouille's KR Groupe is a deceptively simple, mid-engine, rear-wheel drive V8 coupe, but when you start peeling back the layers, you see some very interesting design choices, all of which contributed to the incredible speed that ultimately won the SA-GTE Championship. First of all, let's talk about the engine:  A moderately oversquare (meaning, larger bore than stroke) overhead-valve flatplane V8, with a total displacement of 5499 cubic centimetres. The moderate oversquare bore/stroke (99.0mm x 89.3mm) allows for all-round reliability (smaller valves don't float at high RPM at the expense of reduced head flow, while the longer stroke reduces forces on the cylinder walls/piston skirts at the expense of increased piston velocity) in a relatively compact package (reducing weight). What makes this engine unusual is that unlike basically every other engine in SA-GTE, it has a cast-iron block and cast-iron heads. This has a couple of effects; first, cast-iron engines are somewhat more durable than aluminum engines, therefore the engine gets a slight boost in its reliability score. Second, because of the massively increased weight, it moves the car's centre of gravity towards the rear, giving it increased traction on acceleration and, with properly sized tires and some creative suspension tuning, very aggressive handling. The OHV layout of the engine also gives KR Groupe a considerable torque advantage over their typically DOHC-powered rivals.  The compression ratio is fairly high - 11.9:1 - which, along with the cam setting of 100, the air/fuel ratio of 14.0:1 and ignition advance of 95, gives the engine reasonably good specific fuel consumption of 350.12 grams of fuel/kilowatt-hour - far from the best values seen in the series, but still below the overall average of 372 g/kWh. Horsepower and torque are both at the high end of all the entries at 672bhp @ 8700 RPM and 451 ft-lb @6900 RPM. Incidentally, with a higher bore/stroke ratio, a lowered compression ratio and somewhat reduced ignition advance and fuel/air ratio, this engine could have made as much power with better efficiency values, or much more power - possibly pushing 700 bhp - with similar efficiency values. It should be noted that KR Groupe opted to use only 30 Quality Points in the engine, out of a maximum of 40, giving them 10 extra QPs to play with in the chassis of their entry.  Another thing to note is that the rev limiter kicks in at 9200 RPM, well above peak power. This means that when the car shifts gears, it is closer to the power peak and produces proportionately more power through each gear's rev range than if the limiter was immediately after the power peak. As for KR Groupe's drivetrain, it is rather unremarkable, with a couple of exceptions:  KR Groupe opted to put 10 Quality Points into his gearbox, a single-clutch, six-speed sequential unit with fairly closely spaced gears and a gear-limited top speed of 347 km/h, which is not much higher than the calculated drag-limited top speed of 339 km/h. Of note is that he did not opt for the automatic locker differential, which would have made a fast car potentially even faster. As far as I can tell, this may or may not be an issue with Automation, but until it's fixed, it is a way to make your car go faster. Take note of the shape of his power curves in each gear; if you have a naturally-aspirated engine, that is pretty close to ideal.  From an aerodynamic perspective, KR Groupe chose to build a car focused less on top speed and more on aerodynamic downforce. While this affected the car's top speed considerably - to the point that it wasn't fast enough to win at Le Mans and struggled at the Nurburgring and Monza - it gave the car a huge advantage at slower, more twisting circuits, with Suzuka probably being the best-suited track of all for this car. Lots of QPs into this section, along with the downforce undertray, means that a lot of this downforce is free from a drag perspective, so to speak.  Here's the secret sauce of the KR Groupe entry; the suspension tuning. First of all, hydropneumatic suspension, while heavier than standard suspension, does carry with it a substantial boost to driveability ratings, which ultimately affect lap times. It should be noted that my entry, CMW Motorsport, also used hydropneumatic suspension as well, though not to the same effect as KR Groupe. As for suspension settings, we see they dialed in as much camber as possible, which allows for more aggressive suspension tuning in many areas. the front suspension is almost as soft as the game allows, and the rear is moderately hard, which also helps to increase the car's driveablity ratings at the expense of sportiness ratings. The slight oversteer tune seems to be in line with what I came up with as being the optimal balance for a car.  All of this combines to make a very fast accelerating, hard-cornering car that almost completely makes up for its rather low drag-limited top speed. The highly rear-biased weight distribution (31.5F/68.5R - similar to a Porsche 911 IRL) makes for great traction at the rear wheels, but tricky handling, which is largely countered by the suspension tuning. All in all, a tremendous effort. ========================================================================== BEST OF THE REST: CMW Motorsport M-GT6B While lacking the acceleration and straight-line speed of the Riso Racing 4Ecos, or the incredible cornering speed of the KR-Groupes, the CMW Motorsport M-GT6B was nonetheless an effective exercise in compromise, and possessed some features that were certainly unusual in the SA-GTE grid.  Of all the things in the M-GT6 family of cars, engine development was by far the most torturous. Sticking with inline-6 engines exclusively, I first planned on running a turbocharged, 3.1L OHV engine, pushing out almost 750 bhp. Unfortunately, it became clear to me that engine, the CR6-I, was totally unsuited for endurance racing, what with it's specific fuel consumption well over 500g/kWh. Tweaks and technical updates (symbolised by TUx in the variant names) made the engine far more efficient, getting down to 700 bhp and 380g/kWh by the time I threw that engine out. I experimented with a turbocharged DOHC engine, but that too wasn't efficient enough, so it went on the scrap heap. I tried an NA OHV engine and it too wasn't efficient enough; the best that did was 340 g/kWh with a power level I deemed to be adequate - about 660 bhp or so. I even *gasp* tried a V8 at one point! Ultimately, I settled on the CR6-IV engine - a 30-valve, 3998 cc I6 - which seemed to have the best balance of power, weight and efficiency of all of the engines I built (looking back, I should have stuck with the last CR6-I revision). The engine is about as aggressively oversquare as you can get, with a bore/stroke of 103.5mm x 79.2mm. This allows it to rev very high and flow well, but at the expense of some reliability - overall ratiing was 54.9, which, it turns out, was about average for the field. Maximum Quality Points in the top end, a compression ratio of 12.2:1 and variable valve timing on all cams with a cam setting of 100 helped generate good power for reasonable efficiency.  The first CR6-IV had a air/fuel ratio of 15.0:1, a compression ratio of 11.7:1 and an ignition advance of 78. This gave an efficiency of about 260g/kWh, but it also meant that I was making only about 580 bhp or so. It also turns out that with that kind of efficiency, I was burning so little fuel that I could only single-stint the tires, which meant I was losing a lot of time in the pits. Therefore, the solution was to burn more fuel (and tweak the tires back), and thus the TUB version of the CR6-IV B40R engine was born, with 626 bhp @ 8900 RPM and 386 ft-lb @7600 RPM. More compression, richer air/fuel ratio and more ignition advance meant I was making about 45 more horsepower and I increased my specific fuel consumption enough that I could double-stint my tires!  It was also at this point that I raised my rev limit through trial-and-error tuning at the Nurburgring; the 9800 RPM rev limit gave the best lap times while preserving what i figured was an adequate level of reliability. Also of note, I only used 33 Quality Points in my engine, so I could use those other 7 QPs in the chassis (where it turns out I really needed them).  This is where things get interesting; after Riso obliquely mentioned that Geared LSDs were not necessarily the best differential in the game, I tried them all out, and found that the automatic locker was the fastest; I gained about one-tenth of a second per kilometer of track length on average with it; good for 1.3-ish seconds at Le Mans, 2.1 or so at the 'Ring. My gearing is pretty aggressive too; I kept it short because I found that at Le Mans, the car never went faster than 325-330 km/h, so why bother gearing it any higher? The tires of my car were unremarkable; semi-slicks of 335mm front/365mm rear, 19" wheel diameter/705mm overall diameter and +11 QPs, all of which were determined by trial-and-error at the Nurburgring to provide optimum lap times (now are you seeing why I won there?)  For aero, I kind of wish I put a few more QPs into that category, because my car is pretty draggy. The problem is that by reducing downforce I went slower everywhere, even Le Mans, and increasing downforce on the wings/lips made me slower too. Again, like I said at the top of this section, an exercise in compromise.  For my suspension, I went with hydropneumatic as I mentioned earlier. Adjusting for weight between the suspension types, it gave me the fastest lap times. The front suspension is very aggressive in my car, owing to it's 52/48 weight distribution, while the back suspension is on the softer, less aggressive side, which allows for better traction when accelerating. All of these settings were once again, optimised on the Nurburgring. Even a small deviation from these settings would lose me a couple of seconds per lap there.  Overall, I'm disappointed I didn't win, but at the same time I think my entry acquitted itself very well overall considering I deliberately hamstrung myself with my own stubborn design goals at times. Plus it would be kind of awkward if I did win, being the organiser/race director. ========================================================================== EFFICENCY UBER ALLES: Fourth Reich Motorsport's Fuel-Sipping Motor  By far and away, stump's Fourth Reich Motorsports ran the most efficient car in the series. Often, their M640i would make one less stop every driver stint than just about every team on the grid. While a clean aerodynamic design and lots of quality points in Aerodynamics and Gearbox helps, if you don't have an efficient engine to start with, it will all be for nothing.  FRM's V8A was a DOHC, 40-valve flatplane V8, with an aggressively oversquare bore/stroke of 94.1mm x 71mm and a total displacement of 3998 cubic centimetres. With the 5-valve cylinder heads in Automation, it proved to be advantageous to take the reliability hit of an aggressively oversquare bore/stroke ratio so that you could maximise the air flow characteristics of the cylinder head, even if it was at the expense of some efficiency.   Lots of quality points into the engine top end, along with a cam setting of 100 and a compression ratio of 12.6:1 and variable valve timing on all camshafts (which adds weight, reduces reliability but gives a 10-15% boost to efficiency) all make this motor extremely efficient. the air/fuel ratio is the minimum allowed by the game at 15.0:1, and the fairly average setting for ignition advance keeps knocking under control. Additionally, the low ignition advance gives the motor a level of driveability that wouldn't exist otherwise by widening the power band. With 583bhp @ 9300 RPM and 358 lb-ft @ 7500 RPM, FRM's V8 was one of the more tractable motors in the field.  Giving up a bit of reliability by increasing the rev limiter to 9700-10000 RPM might have allowed for faster lap times by keeping the engine in the peak part of the power band longer, and a couple of tweaks here and there might have given a bit more horsepower with only a small increase in specific fuel consumption, but overall FRM's motor was one of the most complete packages in SA-GTE. ========================================================================= Doing Things Backwards - Aeromaster's Unorthodox Front Driver  I've made a lot about Zeppelin Insanity's Aeromaster Racing entry, and for good reason. It's one of the wildest and craziest cars in the entire SA-GTE field and much to my delight, one of the fastest on the high-downforce tracks. First of all, the Aeromaster was designed on one of the most aerodynamically efficient 4-door bodies in the game, and the cooling openings are just large enough to get the job done and that's it. Additionally, all the wings on the front, while a little ridiculous looking, concentrate the aerodynamic downforce on the driven wheels, which means this car can generate some pretty fearsome cornering loads, particularly in high speed corners, and almost completely mitigate the negative aspects of front-wheel drive.  The 4IE V8 engine in the Aeromaster is a unique solution to a very demanding set of constraints; because the engine is transverse-mounted, it is extremely space-limited, especially in length. As such, it is pretty radically undersquare (meaning, the bore is narrower than the stroke), with a bore/stroke of 80.9mm x 97.2mm. This allows for a very compact and lightweight engine that can fit in the engine bay and still displace 3997 cubic centimetres. The downside of course, is that with the long stroke comes high piston velocities, which limits how high the engine can rev as the forces at the crank become unmanageable beyond a certain point. Still, this solution allows for a fairly large displacement engine to fit in a very small space, something that all of our front-wheel drive teams had to contend with; you will find that they all largely arrived at the same conclusion regarding engine bore/stroke.  +13 QPs, an exceptionally high 12.8:1 compression ratio, variable valve timing and a 100 cam setting are pretty run of the mill settings all contribute to the 4IE engine's efficiency, with a specific fuel consumption of 310.4 g/kWh, along with a 13.9:1 air/fuel ratio and an ignition advance of 69. While not exceptionally efficient, the fact that the engine only produces 541 bhp @ 8200 RPM and 357 ft-lb @ 7400 RPM means it is one of the most efficient engines on the grid. Also of note is the use of a performance intake, as opposed to the racing intakes of the other entrants.  Where the 4IE really shines is reliability; with an overall reliability rating of 79.3, this engine was the most reliable engine on the entire grid. It's so reliable, in fact, that I am of the opinion that Aeromaster left a bit too much performance on the table; with a higher rev limit to take more advantage of the engine's power band, a lower compression ratio combined with a richer air/fuel ratio and more ignition advance, along with a racing intake could have given the 4IE a fair bit more power, which is always welcome in a race car. 580 bhp and a redline of 9000-9500 RPM while still being adequately is likely not out of reach for this engine.  In terms of the transaxle, the Aeromaster is fairly conventional, albeit with very closely spaced gearing but a gearing-limited top speed roughly in line with the car's drag-limited top speed. The Geared LSD is once again the choice here, but likely wouldn't be the best in terms of lap times. Lots of QPs in the gearbox help minimise internal power losses, which is basically like having free horsepower. As for tires, the Aeromaster uses the hardest tires available, with 0 QPs, 305mm fronts and 235mm rears. Wider rears, I'm assuming, just create drag and slow the car down. Having said that, the car could have been so much faster if they had run on even medium (+6 QP) tires.  As for aerodynamics, the Aeromaster foregoes the downforce undertray and relies solely on the lips and wings for downforce. With most of the aero devices over the front axle of the car, all of the downforce acts through the driven/steering wheels, which can only be a good thing. However, the lack of downforce in the rear likely causes some handling problems in higher-speed corners and probably threw the car off pace on tracks like Daytona and Le Mans. Not shown is the effect on the braking force generated by the rear brakes that this aero distribution has; above about 200 km/h, the rear brakes are unable to generate any braking force at all...perhaps not the most ideal situation.  This seriously makes my head hurt. This shouldn't work, and yet it does...and well at that! Just look at the driveability number of 0.90.  Overall, this is a car that when you look at it on the surface, the thing should be a complete disaster. And yet when you start peeling back the layers, you see some brilliant ideas that make this thing work like you wouldn't believe. If it had more power and a little bit of attention to the rear of the car, it could have been so much faster... Anyways, those are my impressions of a select few cars on the grid; if any of you want to throw together a quick tech article about your cars, go ahead...I'm sure there are more than a few people who would be interested to read them. MrChips fucked around with this message at 07:19 on Jul 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
Pretty happy with my number 8 finish since I forgot to submit my final design, and only managed one top 10 finish all season! Cheers for the comments on the car, my final unsubmitted design did lose some economy in favour of a power, had a higher redline, and had a much better suspension setup, but I doubt it would have made top 3. And thanks to Mr Chips for running the Championship 👍🏾
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 08:36
|
|
|
Duckaerobics posted:I can't believe I was able to keep that lead. Great competition though. Hats off to the Aeromaster team for making it so close. I'll get you next time, Gadget!  I agree with MrChips' conclusions, I could have been much, much faster. I emphasised economy with the tyres far too much, and reliability with the engine. I was deathly scared of engine failure, and thought it would be a lot more common. As all the testing sessions only ran for 2 hours, I wasn't sure. In testing I got a hell of a lot more power out of that engine if I let the reliability drop, but I self imposed a target of 70-80 on myself. Zeppelin Insanity fucked around with this message at 10:22 on Jul 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 09:20
|
|
|
 MustardFacial posted:Whatever the rules, I just want you to know that next time I'm building a car specifically to compete against you. I would build something to compete with your trash, but it would dilute TMR's branding of only building cool cars for cool people. (Gay marry me asap. TIA.) MustardFacial posted:I tried to pull the fuse for the fuel pump but those TMR tattle tales saw me and said they we're going to have a talk with the FIA HMMMMM.....  www.safedrive.tm/bathurst300: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 10:32
|
|
|
I am chalking it up as a win that, no matter that it ran slow, my Griffin did not have to retire from a single race this season despite my horrible design skills.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 11:00
|
|
|
Finished last in the manufacturer's competition? I guess I really should have gone back to allocate those 12 extra QPs I had laying around.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
The chassis design choices for the top entries were quite interesting. Looking forward to having the boys in the lab take a spare Gus model and see what they can do with the other design options. It's a teachable moment for T1H.Tremek posted:Wow, congrats bentai for moving up in the last race of the season!
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Chiwie, I think your logo would be better if you kept the TM red and then just stick the grey R next to it. Keeps branding quickly recognisable with that special twist. I had an engine slightly better than Stump's but decided against because it was not as quick. My car would have been easily two seconds faster with better tyres. A mistake that shall not be repeated. Third place is very nice but really who cares. I won Le Mans, bitches!  The most prestigious race in the calender and the only one people will care about, remember and companies have advertisting effects from. Just ask Toyota and Audi 2014. *cough* So, Retro GT. Excellent. I say year 1967. I think that's when Aluminium engines become available. I hope we abandon the minimum weight for that and set Power:Weight limits instead. Else we ruin the nice nimble Minis and E-Type's. The heavier Mustang will be able to mount bigger, more powerful engines to make up for the weight. Concerning the stock LM cars: Will we be able to tweak the suspension settings to change car behaviour based on the weight distribution? Hitting one of the default buttons alone would help. Being able to change the trim for that personal touch would be nice as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
This would also work well over in Let's Play I think as a play by post sort of.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 09:30
|
|
|
A quick update; I have almost worked out a formula for a Retro SA-GT series, set in 1970. Earlier than that, there aren't enough good body styles, and later than that you run into complications of turbocharging and whatnot. As things stand right now, cars will compete in three classes, from which the entrants can compete in a maximum of two; Touring, Sportsman and Open. All of the classes have minimum and maximum weight restrictions (the maximum weight includes the weight of fuel...yes, I have added a simple fuel weight simulation), as well as engine displacement ranges. Quality Points are limited in each class and for Touring and Sportsman, there will be - gasp - a cost restriction, simulating the fact that they are production cars that people would buy, drive to the race track, slap a number on them, race, then drive home. Open class is where the fastest cars will be found, with only a few restrictions (not that there is much to restrict in this era in Automation) to QPs, min/max weight again, maximum engine size and maximum wheel/tire size. Unfortunately, the prototype challenge had to die to make this happen, as there aren't any appropriate bodies until the mid-1980s. Even then, they're heavy and slow as all hell; at least, slower than I want them to be. I looked for a body on the Steam Workshop and there was nothing there either. E: I will also try and find as many contemporary track layouts as possible too. wargames posted:This would also work well over in Let's Play I think as a play by post sort of. A what? I don't read LP, and I have really no interest in interacting with that crowd either. MrChips fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Jul 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Are we going to be allowed to use Steam Workshop bodies? I'd really like a few more 70's options than fat-assed fastbacks, for all that those are the right shape. That said, if we're going full 70's, larger engines yes? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Are we going to be allowed to use Steam Workshop bodies? The problem is that for now, there aren't any good bodies on the Workshop. When this contest runs in a couple months there might be more, but don't count on it. Also as it stands, the maximum displacement in Open Class is 8400cc (512ci) for an OHV engine (and 6000cc for an OHC engine). That'll probably change as I tighten things up balance-wise though...it might actually get larger!
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Can we simulate the nightmarish emissions regulations of the 1970's as well
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
8ender posted:Can we simulate the nightmarish emissions regulations of the 1970's as well no cats in 1970 atleast in game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 07:01
|
|
|
Yeah, emissions didn't happen until '72-73 and later, 1970 is still golden-era-leaded-fuel-no-cats-gently caress-fuel-economy-and-the-environment muscle car wonderland.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
MrChips posted:The problem is that for now, there aren't any good bodies on the Workshop. When this contest runs in a couple months there might be more, but don't count on it. Why don't you just go with power:weight ratio? Big cars, bigger engines.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
Having the ability to go CANAM with the aero bodies of the 80s, 90s, and 2000s would be fun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
So what's next MrChips?!
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
Tremek posted:So what's next MrChips?! Still the 1970 Retro Challenge. Haven't had much time to work on it lately though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
I'm making a 70's engine but I'm bothered by the fact that you can't make a 289. The bore/stroke ratios are outside of the game limits for everything smaller than a 302. I also feel like the pushrods are a little too limiting on valve float. I can't get my 302 to rev over 6K without setting the cam to 100 and putting 15 QP's into the valvetrain. Anyway one of the production car classes needs to have a limit of at least 5L so I can make a Cobra clone with a SBF (It's going to be called the Venom Snake).
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
This was a good read, even though I do not possess a computer that allows me to participate. If they port this to lol Mac or iOS I would love to take a shot at competing. This was very entertaining, and I look forward to the 1970 showdown!
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Ultimate Mango posted:This was a good read, even though I do not possess a computer that allows me to participate. If they port this to lol Mac or iOS I would love to take a shot at competing. This was very entertaining, and I look forward to the 1970 showdown! If you have a Mac you can run Bootcamp and therefore Automation. You have no excuses.  Duckaerobics posted:I also feel like the pushrods are a little too limiting on valve float. I can't get my 302 to rev over 6K without setting the cam to 100 and putting 15 QP's into the valvetrain. Pushrods are lovely for getting high rpm in real life too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Still the 1970 Retro Challenge. Haven't had much time to work on it lately though. Cool, looking forward to the official competition design rules when you find a few moments.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
Duckaerobics posted:I'm making a 70's engine but I'm bothered by the fact that you can't make a 289. The bore/stroke ratios are outside of the game limits for everything smaller than a 302. I also feel like the pushrods are a little too limiting on valve float. I can't get my 302 to rev over 6K without setting the cam to 100 and putting 15 QP's into the valvetrain. Anyway one of the production car classes needs to have a limit of at least 5L so I can make a Cobra clone with a SBF (It's going to be called the Venom Snake). Regarding the 289, you should submit that issue to the devs...chances are they'll fix it. On the subject of pushrod motors, they will be getting a displacement boost in two of the classes, but with the QP limitations that will be in place, don't expect a pushrod motor to be able to rev past 6000 RPM. I'm not sure a small-block Cobra clone will be competitive in Open class, but a 427 Cobra clone very much will be 
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:13 |
|
|
HotCanadianChick posted:Pushrods are lovely for getting high rpm in real life too. Motor trend's supposedly period correct boss 302 revved to 6800, and I believe the redline in the stock 68 with a 302 was around 5800. The engine I made in game basically loses all power at around 6K even with the valve train maxed out. That's not a huge difference, but I still think pushrods are a little over restrictive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 02:15
|
|