|
Kilonum posted:For Group C, will you be doing both of my bodies? Absolutely! It's only fair, after all, any car that ran in the series should get its time in the limelight. Besides, I liked how the Assabet looked anyways so it was going to happen regardless.
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
382 HP! There truly is no replacement for displacement!
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
Honestly, the plan with my Group A car was to design a practical track car out of a standard production hatchback that could win the Safari Rally just with a different set of rubber and suspension settings. Though, I think I'll go with a turbocharged set-up and shove some extra holes to the hood on it next year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 13:44
|
|
|
Fish, you gotta tell us about your tiny spoiler!
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
SASC-89 Group B Entry Gallery Fourth Place - NEMW Merrimack GT-R (Kilonum) http://i.imgur.com/HZJqu2Y.gifv The Merrimack probably went through more engine iterations during the course of the entire event than any other car, going from a inline-6 with just under 4000cc of displacement, through the 4500cc engine used through Weeks 1-4, to the final 5001cc engine used in the final week. Only one naturally-aspirated engine had a higher specific output than the 49NAR's 110 horsepower/litre in the entire challenge, and that too was one of Kilonum's engines. However, the car was let down substantially by low reliability, especially in the last iteration where it was down in the low 20s, and rather conservative aero and suspension tuning. Apart from that, this was a car that proved to be a constant threat to the championship-winning Flarmarbol, never far behind and always lying in wait, ready to pounce on even the smallest mistake by the scarlet team. Third Place - LATOY RM2000 (Triple A) http://i.imgur.com/ZQB1QYj.gifv The RM2000 was, like its smaller sibling in Group A, based on the principle of safety, reliability and economy. The 6000cc V12 was very conservative in nature, but in terms of all around performance - power, economy and reliability - it was in my personal opinion the best engine in the entire class. Unfortunately, the RM2000 was let down by its weight, and very conservative tuning package. In a lighter, smaller body, this engine would have undoubtedly been the cream of the crop. That still did not prevent LATOY from dramatically sweeping the top two spots in the race at Monza, where everyone in the team came out of their shoes and put together nothing short of a supernaturally good performance - well done indeed! Second Place - Automurdermotive Fiasco Furiouso (Boksi) http://i.imgur.com/63ozwbG.gifv While the Fiasco Furiouso is ostensibly the same model as the Fiasco Basic in Group A, there are a number of key differences, chief among them the fact that the Furiouso has a more conventional rear-wheel drive layout. The 1999cc turbocharged V12 carries over, albeit in a much higher state of tune than in the Group A car. This car too was quite competitive, taking a number of podium finishes over the course of the season, as well as winning the race at Bathurst. Amazingly, for such a small, heavily-worked engine, the Fiasco Furiouso did not seem to suffer much in terms of reliability, the team finishing 47 of 50 starts to match both LATOY entries as the most reliable cars in the field, and beating their siblings in the lower class by a single start. With a more efficient engine, this car could very well become a serious contender in 1990. First Place - Flamarbol RIPA (slothrop) http://i.imgur.com/X6fsjEw.gifv What more can be said about this car? It had the right combination of power, handling and reliability to allow this car to absolutely dominate the class, winning a mind-boggling twenty of twenty-five races. Any critiques leveled at this car can only be minor, really - about the only thing I can think of is that a larger engine would have been able to get away with less turbocharging, which could have been more efficient (and thus more powerful). I mean, slothrop was even able to keep the weight virtually unchanged from this car's Group A siblings!
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
MrChips posted:I think the fuel capacity penalty will basically negate any perception of an unfair advantage the 930 body has Please don't get me wrong, it wasn't in the least unfair - I had equal opportunity to choose it and didn't. A personal choice all the way, same as how I didn't want to go RR slothrop posted:Fish, you gotta tell us about your tiny spoiler! I think I did it just to try and get access to the downforce slider. I can't really remember simplefish fucked around with this message at 11:21 on Mar 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 11:10
|
|
|
SASC-89 Group C Entry Gallery Third Place - NEMW Hoosic GT-R (Kilonum) http://i.imgur.com/8a2Kwpz.gifv AND NEMW Assabet GT-R (Kilonum) http://i.imgur.com/bSRFV3m.gifv NEMW ran two cars in Group C; for the first three legs of the championship, the Assabet GT-R carried the flag, and after that the Hoosic GT-R. Both cars used the same engine, the 700-horsepower, 5628cc naturally-aspirated NAR56 V8. This motor has the distinction of having the highest specific output of any naturally-aspirated motor in the entire challenge. However this did come at a cost; lower than average reliability and higher than average fuel consumption. Also, both cars struggled with weight, the Assabet especially, and they both struggled to harness the considerable power of the big V8 engine for reasons of suspension and drivetrain tuning. Interestingly, NEMW originally presented the Assabet as an all-wheel drive, V12-powered supercar, but that car tipped the scales at well over 1300 kilograms, which more than negated any traction advantage the all-wheel drive bestowed. It should also be noted, though, that both cars had the highest top speeds of any Group C car, and in some cases rivalling that of some of the Prototypes. At Le Mans, both Assabets went through the speed trap on the Mulsanne straight at just over 353 kilometres per hour, or just shy of 220 miles per hour. The Hoosic GT-R was no different in that respect, with a top speed every bit as impressive as it's wedge-shaped predecessor. Second Place - VH Racing V12 Special (extreme_accordion) http://i.imgur.com/WbOEiCY.gifv Hailing from a land where time seemingly stopped forty years ago, the antiquated, almost quaint styling of the Victorian Hooray Racing V12 Special hides the fact that this is an absolutely state-of-the-art race car. Under the aluminium skin lies a carbon fiber monocoque and a highly sophisticated 5995cc V12 engine, producing nearly 700 horsepower and with the best specific fuel consumption in class. This, along with the car's compact size, contributes to the 975 kilogram race weight, which also happened to be the best in class. The proof of the V12 Special's excellent design was in the results; twelve class wins and one overall win, and a very close finish with first-place CMW. The only thing that held the V12 Special back was somewhat marginal reliability and just straight-up bad luck...With a couple minor tweaks, this could be the car to beat next year. First Place - CMW 976 3.8 RSR (MrChips) http://i.imgur.com/uRwEnug.gifv The big brother to the 976 4.0R in Group A, this car bears more in common with its lesser sibling than at first glance. Apart from obviously being based on the same chassis, the 3795cc turbocharged V6 B38T0 variant of CMW's B52 engine shares a common block, cylinder head and connecting rods with the Group A engine, as well as the abortive Prototype engine as well, albeit with different pistons and crankshafts. This lightweight, compact engine produced 643 horsepower with reasonably good efficiency (for a small, turbocharged engine at least), and combined with the rear-engine layout was able to make the very best of every horsepower available. However, like its class rivals, the 3.8 RSR was hampered by poor durability and reliability, breaking down at the most inopportune times. If any of the Group C entries can fix their reliability without appreciably harming their lap times, they will truly be a force to be reckoned with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
SASC-89 Prototype Entry Gallery Second Place - NEMW Neponset (Kilonum) http://i.imgur.com/GmwfcVb.gifv NEMW's entry into the Prototype class changed considerably over the course of the challenge; while all the variants of the Neponset used naturally-aspirated V12 engines, that is about all that was common between the three engines run over the course of the challenge. In this, the ultimate version, engine displacement grew to almost nine litres, with the engine producing very close to eleven hundred horsepower. However, this engine was large (and thus heavy) temperamental and very highly strung, which made the Neponset a very challenging car to drive on the tighter, more twisting circuits of the Championship, in direct contrast to the car's incredible abilities at places like Le Mans and Fuji. Very conservative suspension tuning also did not help in that respect either, as the Neponset left some time on the table from that too. With some tweaks, the 90NAR engine could still be a force to be reckoned with in 1990... First Place - CMW/Nfz Turbo 8(MrChips) http://i.imgur.com/0f06e3L.gifv AND CMW Turbo http://i.imgur.com/z6wGWzD.gifv CMW set themselves a huge challenge with their ambitious plan to run the B52 engine family in all three classes they entered, with different engine trims fulfilling the various requirements of each. Very quickly, it became evident that the engine in the CMW Turbo was not up to the task, so a crash program was undertaken to adapt another engine from the CMW Group's vast product line for use in the Prototype class. The end result could not have been more different; in place of the heavily turbocharged, high-revving V6, an extremely fuel-efficient, low-revving turbocharged V8 was fitted, with immediate and dramatic results. With roughly the same fuel consumption of a Group C car, the Turbo 8 rode a huge wave of torque and horsepower to the championship, winning 17 of 20 races after its debut at the sixth round at Estoril. Rumour even has it that the engine was detuned considerably from its potential, as unlike most engines in the series where the redline is the biggest factor in the ultimate reliability of the engine, the Turbo 8's engine simply was not strong enough to produce any more torque and maintain the target reliability.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
just fyi, after doing a little digging, the domain sasportsca.rs is available. I am of course open to other suggestions
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 10:35
|
|
|
So, the long-promised write-up about my entries! I chose the 930 body for a couple of reasons; first, I've hard huge success with rear-engine entries in the last couple challenges I've participated in, and it also acted kind of as a fun bookend to the car I built for the BRC 1976 challenge over on the Automation forums. I like the huge traction advantage they have, which is critical when you are in a very tire-limited class, and once you wrap your head around the wonky setup they require - it doesn't seem right that the car goes and handles better with very narrow tires up front - you can actually tame that body pretty easily. As for engines, the tight packaging of the 930 body meant that the Group C entry drove the engine's design. The tiny engine bay of the 930 body, combined with the fact that a short engine brings the center of gravity forward, means you need the shortest possible engine block, and the V6 wins in that regard. Next comes the issue of turbocharging - turbochargers take up a ton of room, and in an engine bay where space is already at a premium it means you need to build a somewhat compromised engine to make it all fit, with a narrow bore and a long stroke. With a bit of work, I was able to create an engine family that could be made as large as 4 litres, run turbochargers and fit in the body. Since the Group A didn't need forced induction, this engine family would work fine as it was, and without the space constraints (and a healthy boost of production units) could also probably be made to work in a Prototype. Group A worked just fine as expected; I ran a de-stroked, de-bored 3.5 litre engine making 337 horsepower and revving out to 7900 RPM to start with. This also meant that as the competition got better and better (and holy poo poo you guys did), I had lots of additional room for growth in the engine. As the engine grew from 3.5, through 3.9 to 4 litres, it meant I had to run more efficiently to stay within the fuel burn limits; specific fuel consumption dropped by something like 10 percent and power went up by 5 or so, and with the lower cam settings the engine also produced a larger, more useable power band. Group C, I hardly changed a thing because I just couldn't make anything work. The 3.8 litre engine was full bore but de-stroked somewhat, the result of a balancing act between needing to rev the engine higher and higher to make power and at trying to keep the thing from grenading on track. The issue here was I needed to run very small turbos in this variant, which meant that they needed to work very hard to produce any meaningful boost, especially combined with the small engine displacement. This required the turbos to have a fairly high AR ratio, which meant they held boost very high in the rev range, but at the cost of spooling late and diminished fuel economy. I tried a full-bore engine, but found that the longer bore worked contrary to the requirements that the turbos dictated; counter-intuitively, a smaller engine, with a shorter stroke to allow it to rev even higher, would have been more powerful. The Prototype variant was a trainwreck. It started at 3.9 litres, but as I found I needed more power it got de-stroked more and more, revving to the loving moon in the 3.7 litre version. I also found that no matter what I did I just could not make enough power no matter how hard I tried, so I decided I had to rely on suspension tuning and efficiency to make up for it - the engine you see in that variant burned only about 160 kilos of fuel an hour. When it proved that efficiency and handling wasn't enough - my entry had a top speed deficiency of nearly 20 kilometres per hour - it was clear I needed a new engine. Mucking around, I decided to try a large-displacment turbocharged engine, with the added challenge of keeping the fuel consumption the same as the previous engine. I ended up with that enormous 9-litre V8, which produced 940 horsepower at its 5500 RPM redline, about 1100 foot-pounds of torque at something silly like 2000 RPM, and with a power curve that would be better called a power plateau. Even with the huge gain in weight - 200+ kilograms - the car was so much faster in every way (except for low-speed handling) that it was more than able to close the gap; lap times on the Automation test track fell from 1:59.3ish with the old engine to just under 1:58, and the car gained almost seven seconds a lap at Le Mans as well. I did give up a bit of speed by setting my pit strategy to run hard tires all the time, but that had the effect of keeping my cars out of the pits even longer so it was perhaps a slight net gain there too. slothrop posted:just fyi, after doing a little digging, the domain sasportsca.rs is available. I am of course open to other suggestions I'll have to think about it! MrChips fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Apr 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
Contact Information: 1 Fawn Lane Chelsea, WI, USA 54304 Victorian Hooray Racing William Ferdinand Enders, Acting Stiff Victorian Hooray Racing Announces a Celebration FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Elkhart Lake, WI - Victorian Hooray Racing is pleased to announces a celebration of their fantastic achievements for the SASC-89 Season effective May 29, 1989. 5:00 pm CST: Drinks and hors d'oeuvres prior to a dinner of barbeque, brats, roast corn, and all the fixings. At the shop off of Badger Road, Elkhart Lake, WI. "It was a fantastic season and I'm just chuffed about getting to turn a wheel in anger for the local boys. It's a far way from home but it's been years and we are so glad to get the lads back together." Keith Packard, Driver #38 car. Victorian Hooray Racing is a privateer team hailing from Elkhart Lake, Wisconsin made of a bunch of castoffs from all over the world. They pride themselves on great driving, good enough fixes, and getting the drat job done at race time. --------------------------------------------------------- Details about the VH V12 Special -------------------------------------------------- Rushing through it and reasons: So life got busy in a drat hurry the say day MrChips announced the '89 season. I was in, then clearly out (lack of time), and then magically had nothing but free time. So I rushed like mad to get an entry in. I ran my idea for a vehicle past MrChips which got OK'd and my group C entry was born. As his write up says it is a carbon fiber monocoque chassis with an aluminum skin. It looks like hell up close but it gets the job done when you consider that I put 15 minutes into the chassis design and easily 4 - 6 hours into the motor before I was happy with any results. My scrutineering report really helped cement some ideas and another 2-4 hours was spent tweaking items until I came to where the engine sits now. A V12 really isn't the way to go as it is absolute hell on points and then getting reliability out of it is another scare. Some how I made it work. All that and fuel efficiency too. Then I forgot to set the drat base suspension... (at this point I figure it falls into the whole idea of the car that time forgot). I had a great time and look forward to 1990!
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
From the official IRC channel for the gamequote:<mer-at> do you know when the UE4 beta is getting released?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
So are we all done with wrap ups and we discuss 1990 in the other thread?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
Yep, unless anyone else has anything else they'd like to add I think we're done here. Well done to everyone once again! Discussion continues here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 20:32
|
|