|
Well, it's been over a year, and after many broken promises and missed deadlines, IT'S FINALLY HERE, my long awaited second build-race-revise challenge for Automation: The Car Company Tycoon Game: Unlike the previous challenges, SA-GTE and SA-GT 1975, this challenge will feature:
So, What is Automation?  Click to go to the Games thread! Well, it's best summed up as such: The Automation Website posted:Automation is a car company tycoon game in which you design and build cars from scratch. It is you who designs everything from the very core that is the engine, over the chassis, to the suspension and the car's looks. Several games have tried this before... but were able to merely scratch the surface. Go ahead, build your dream-car company, or simply aim to dominate the world markets with your superior design skills! Automation has made a ton of progress in the last year! More content added, along with the first vestiges of the tycoon game. But, what we're here for is the cars, and our ability to design, build and then race them in a grueling racing series. If you're curious what one of these challenges will look like, I've run two of them in the past here on the Forums:
So, How do I enter? Well, first, download the SASC-89 Challenge Pack, which contains the rule booklet and an Excel copy of the official fuel burn calculator (a Google Sheets version can be found here if you prefer), a guide to building a fast car written by yours truly, as well as the files for the CRT-89 Prototype, if you're so inclined to enter the Prototype class in this challenge. Then, design your car to your heart's content and send it into me at aisheepgame@gmail.com no later than February 9th at 2359 GMT (6:59 PM Eastern Time)! The sooner you enter, the better, as you will be able to get far more testing under your belt, which you can use to revise your entries - move quickly, because the first test runs a week today! MrChips fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Jan 17, 2017 |
#
¿
Jan 16, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 05:18 |
|
|
Challenge Specifications Prototype Challenge Specifications  SASC-89 Challenge Calendar  Challenge Resources SASC-89 Challenge Pack SASC-89 Fuel Burn Calculator SASC-89 Pit Stop Strategy Form Car Number Selection Sheet Pyrlix's High Quality Essentials Pack MrChips fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Jan 30, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
Road Atlanta Results: Constructor Standings (click for big):  Revision Points: 
MrChips fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Mar 18, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
Just a reminder to everyone that you can enter as many as three classes in this challenge!slothrop posted:I'm having a play with this, struggling to keep my Chassis Production Units under 98, thus eliminating me from group A. I'm not using anything really fancy and don't have any sliders stacked up - any basic things I might be doing wrong here? I also don't seem to be able to get my car's top speed over 200 no matter how much I play with the gearing. Group A requires some pretty spartan designs. You will need to make compromises like not using anything but steel in the body/chassis, cheap suspension components, steel or maybe alloy wheels, sizing your brakes and calipers tightly to your needs and so on. Beyond that, certain bodies will just struggle to meet the production unit cap no matter what you do. The dirty little secret of Group A is that it's probably going to be the hardest class of all to be competitive!  As for your speed problem, make sure you aren't overcooling, and also make sure you're getting the most out of your limited fuel allotment as well...This is a class where ten horsepower could make the difference between winning and losing. MrChips fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Jan 17, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
slothrop posted:Kilonum, here's the link you were after: http://steamcommunity.com/workshop/filedetails/?id=469666352 Yup, totally forgot to put that link into the OP...  Fixed now. Kilonum posted:So I also made a Group A car (in addition to the other 3 classes) Well I'll tell you what; you (and everyone else) can run all four classes in pre-season testing, but you'll have to make a decision which to cut by the submission deadline on the 9th.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
Boksi posted:So I'll definitely be joining this. But man, first car I tried making for group A was 300 kg underweight. I tried to make a small car with a small turbocharged engine and I made it too small it seems. Onto the next try, then. Maybe I'll make it a V12, that's a fitting engine for a lower-end group, right? If it'll fit the rules, you can do whatever you like!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
So I've had a look at all the entries I've received so far, and apart from a couple little issues here and there, I've found nothing really seriously wrong with any of them. Just make sure you have accounted for all the rules, particularly the tire rules, fuel burn and driver aids. I do have to say, I'm loving the variation in engines I've received so far!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
OK, ATT Test Round 1 had been completed: In other news: I totally spaced out about car numbers - you guys get to choose them, so go to this sheet here and make your choices! MrChips fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Jan 24, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
Kilonum posted:Hrm, do i trash my group C or rebuild it from scratch? Well, you have a **TON** of production units left to use in both your engine and your chassis, so...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
Kilonum posted:yeah but isn't the maximum QPs per section on both 0? Nope, the minimum (apart from the excepted sections) is zero! The reason for this is that certain sections can get a little fucky with negative QPs.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
Triple A posted:I'm honestly surprised that one of my Group A cars had a faster lap than every Group B car in the field so far, in spite of being 100 KG above the weight limit. Oh, that was a typo. I had to make this results sheet manually because I sort of forgot about it until now. The next ones will generate automatically. Sorry to get your hopes up... Now having said that... 2:10-2:11 is entirely within reach for a well-designed Group A car. How? Well, check out the build guide I wrote that's part of the Challenge Pack. It should give you some pointers to make your car go faster. The single biggest thing I can say for this challenge is to try and do the most for the least - specific fuel consumption is absolutely critical here, as a low SFC will allow more horsepower under the fuel burn rules. Now I will concede this - even though I built the simulation, I have literally no idea who things will work when the weather kicks in. Fast cars might all of a sudden become absolute dogs in the wet or in extreme heat, and slower cars might all of a sudden be the fastest cars on track.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
Apologies for the delay, but Test 2 is now in the books: The revised entries have made some pretty good gains; well done! As I am still kind of on the fence about entering my own challenge still, I am more than willing to offer advice to anyone who wants it with regard to how to best improve their entries. Just let me know and I will give you a quick writeup. On another topic, the next test, coming this Friday, will be our first chance to try out the weather simulation. For this test, all the cars will run the same pit strategy; in other words, the soft tire to hard tire changeover will be at 30 degrees C, the slick to intermediate changeover will be at 30% moisture, and the intermediate to wet changeover will be at 75% moisture, which are the default values for the simulation. Going forward, I will unlock the pit strategy tool so that you can make adjustments based on the forecasts I will publish a week beforehand.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
slothrop posted:My most recent email had testing times attached but no scrutineers report. Does this mean I passed (I doubt it) That's because I forgot to attach them! Not only that but I am away from my computer till tomorrow evening, so I can't send them until then. (Your Group B passed while the A did not - safety rating was too low).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
slothrop posted:Cool, that's given me a chance to revist and change a few things, hopefully a little more competitive now. What's the rounding error on production units? I can get my group A reading 90.0 but the final report has it at 90.01 The simulation model imports the LUA files directly and reads them, hence why you see some values that are a little more precise than what you see in-game. I will change the model's precision to reflect what you see in the game - I mean, if the game says you have 90.0 production units and the model dings you at 90.01, that's kind of unfair. I don't know if I would call it wizardry; the big thing is that I chased specific fuel consumption at all cost in my entry, which in turn allows me to run more horsepower. There isn't much to it, to be honest:
MrChips fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Jan 27, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
I'm sorry to say I've had a bit of a delay with the results of our first weather test; they will be up and out first thing tomorrow morning (for me at least). I ran into a couple of really dumb problems with the model that I have since fixed. One of which could be summed up as such: Lap 105  : Hey, the weather's looking bad, call in the cars to change to inters! : *puts slick tires on*Lap 106 : Hey, the weather's looking bad, call in the cars to change to inters!: *puts slick tires on*And so on...and so on... Needless to say, we fired those paste-eaters and hired some pit crews that didn't spend their time using the impact wrenches on each other's nutsacks.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
Alright, results are in for the first weather test: I am going to be making a few tweaks to the weather system, since it hasn't ramped up the difficulty enough. Meanwhile, in other news: SASC Test Diary - Where is CMW's Prototype? As the first week of testing for the upcoming 1989 sportscar season draws to a close, the teams and press alike couldn't help but notice the absence of CMW's much-vaunted prototype entry for the SASC-89 Championship. CMW Motorsport boss MrChips has deftly avoided questions on the subject since the first test session, saying "the engineering team is working around the clock to bring our brand's signature performance to all of our motorsport projects", but internal sources reveal signs of a troubled development for the prototype. "With the economic downturn, (CMW) motorsport and the board of directors locked horns repeatedly last year over the budget for the 1989 racing season," our inside source reports, "they also openly questioned the marketing value of the prototype program in particular, especially considering it was originally to be powered by a motor that bore no resemblance to anything in series production." Another source in the team's powertrain team confirms this story; "we had designed an all-new, turbocharged inline-six motor, displacing roughly five litres and producing far in excess of nine hundred horsepower. This configuration ran once on the company's private test track with highly favourable results, but around the time of the first test, the board of directors came down hard on the motorsport division's spending in the face of decreasing sales worldwide and the cost of launching the new 990 sports car, replacing the 976 later this year. As such, we embarked on a crash program develop a further version of the B52 motor, already in use both in production models of the 976 as well as in the 976 Group A and C racecars." Unfortunately, it seems as though development of this ultimate version of CMW's so-called "Ratte" motor has been fraught with problems; it is rumoured to be down on power from the inline-six, while also struggling with reliability issues as well. Our source continues; "There is only so much we can do with four litres of displacement; we are currently five percent above our target fuel burn, and to make matters worse, the models show we are about half a percent slower around the track than we want to be, and more around faster tracks like Hockenheim and Le Mans. The chassis team has done an incredible job tuning the CRT-89 already, shaving almost a full percent off the lap times so far, but this last half a percent is going to be like squeezing blood from a stone.". In spite of the difficulties encountered, CMW is likely to bring their prototype to next week's testing, but the road ahead for them is long and challenging indeed. MrChips fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Jan 28, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
OK, so I've sent all the participants their passcodes for the pit stop strategy tool. This tool allows you to change what temperature (from soft compound to hard compound), and moisture levels your car will switch tire types (from slick to intermediate to full wet). Also, it will let you choose your fuel reserve level where the car will come into the pits to refuel. As for the weather forecast for the second weather test, well, it's going to be a lovely hot day:  fake edit: I should also mention that these tests start at noon, so it will be reaching the hottest part of the day by the end of the two hours.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
Test 3 is complete: Just a reminder to anyone who is thinking of entering the challenge (and everyone is welcome!), the deadline for new entries is February 9th!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
And I will reiterate, my offer to help anyone make their car go faster is still open for anyone willing to take me up on it. And I have to say that so far I am pretty pleased by the diversity of entries so far; one of them in particular has an engine that even makes me go 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
extreme_accordion posted:Really just want to make an 'exhibition' category car. 1950s coupe body (the jag/mg looking thing) but with Group C stats. Hmm, I will grant you a "waiver", so to speak, from the body age restriction if you're willing!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2017 23:05
|
|
Aero be damned ala Morgan not really changing their overall since the 'teens.
|
OK, Test 4 is complete, and things got a little rough out there: It appears as though there was a bit of a coming-together between the #9 V12 Fiasco and the #6 CRT-NEMW entries. Both cars were able to rejoin the test, but not after lengthy repairs in the pits. And on the administrative side, I have decided to stop firing out incessant emails with testing results; instead, I have created a Dropbox folder for each of you, with all your reports in there instead! Let me know if this works better for you guys because holy poo poo it does make things faster for me. MrChips fucked around with this message at 04:37 on Feb 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
slothrop posted:Dropbox is a great idea. Does it help if we upload our car files there too? Fuel economy is modelled in the simulation, but the fuel burn that we are using in scrutineering has a direct connection to that figure. The model uses your engine's specific fuel consumption, the shape of your power curve and your gearing, along with the track parameters, to calculate actual fuel burn. I don't know if you've done it already but if you figure out from the tests how long your car was on track and how much fuel it burned in total, my guess is that it will be something in the neighbourhood of 15 percent (plus or minus a couple percent) less than the fuel burn calculator tells you. This is intentional, as the simulation models roughly how long and how often each car is accelerating and how long/often it isn't. Almost all the tracks will give an actual fuel burn that is less than the calculator value, while one track, Hockenheim, will be a percent or two higher at most. Don't fret about that though, as everyone will be in that boat - the calculator is just there to provide a standard to be judged by.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Weather Test 2 is now complete, under the hot, sweltering sun: All the newest testing reports have been sent to your Dropbox folders. Also, revised entries can now be uploaded to your folder as well; I still need new players to email me so I can set everything up for you.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
Test 5 is now complete, results uploaded to your folders. Also, here are the weather forecasts to take us right to the beginning of the racing season:  And just a reminder that there is still time to enter the challenge, for those of you still on the fence!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Just to check, the minimum weight excludes fuel, right? Because I'm going to have to find ballast... Minimum weight excludes fuel, and the cars go a little faster around the track than their in-game time, but it's usually not much more than a couple of tenths on the Automation test track.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
Triple A posted:Even if your car's slower, it can still win by needing to stop less / being more reliable than everyone else. Well to a degree this is true, but having smashed my head against the wall for the better part of a week doing exactly that, the best way to go faster is still more power. On this topic, I might as well let the cat out of the bag with regard to my prototype entry; it was extremely troublesome because I set myself the goal of a) using a common engine family with my Group A and C cars, and b) with that engine not being able to make the power I desired with any reasonable reliability. As such, I was forced to chase fuel economy and handling instead, where the gains are very, very small indeed. By my calculation, each 10 kg/h decrease in fuel consumption is equivalent to going a tenth of a second faster on the Automation test track for a prototype-class car - not a particularly big savings, but if your hands are tied like mine were, you don't have a choice. In any case, my prototype burns 20 percent less fuel than the class limit (about 160 kg/h versus the limit of 200 kg/h) and had to have a LOT of compromises in the handling and pit strategies to make it go as fast as it is - I don't expect to do all that well at Le Mans because my top speed is on the low side, as an example. MrChips fucked around with this message at 04:08 on Feb 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
ATT Test 6 is complete, with all revised entries running in it: I have also decided to extend the deadline for entries by a full day now; anyone on the fence can enter until Friday now!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
simplefish posted:I've updated the car, butI haven't done the suspension yet. Is that something I can change in testing easily? I am kind of pushed for time tonight Suspension, brakes, aero and drivetrain tuning can get a fair bit of speed, but it can be pretty small gains, especially in your car which seems to be pretty well-tuned as it is. I should also say that while the entry deadline is now closed, everyone who is still in has a week to get their first revisions into me before they would fall under the revision point system.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
OK, the first mock race is now in the books: The weather started off cool and overcast, but the rain held off through the fifth hour, when the clouds parted and the sun made an appearance. The level of carnage is about what I was hoping, and I'm kind of surprised we haven't had a true engine failure just yet - just sporadic mechanical breakdowns. Either way, things are shaping up to be interesting!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2017 05:00
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Was there a mock race report that we should hace received or did I not get one because my car was illegal? Yes, my apologies - the real world required my attention for a couple of days. There are no reports from this mock race (or the next one either) - these are more to give everyone a chance to check how their pit strategies are working (and also give me a chance to do a final shakedown on the model before things get going).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
Boksi posted:I hope those accidents were just bad luck. Or does the simulation include drivability? Also: Accidents are mostly bad luck, but it is influenced also the weather (a wet track will produce more accidents, and the wrong tire for the conditions will as well), but also a "difficulty" calculation, which is a ratio between sportiness and driveability (specifically, the TrackSportiness and TrackTameness values in the LUA files). Most of the cars are currently running in the 1.2-1.4 range (lower is better), with a few outliers in either direction. It was your engine that made me go - when I first opened up your car in Automation, my reaction to your engine was to let out an incredulous "WHAAAT!", then go about my business making sure it was all above board.As for engines and bodies, well, you are free to make as many changes before the Week 1 Revision deadline this coming Saturday; after that, the revision system kicks in and revisions will be allowed in accordance with the Challenge Handbook. So for those of you interested in some guidance in terms of "how much is enough power?", have some stats from the entries as they stand today: Group A Average Horsepower: 305.5 Minimum Horsepower: 257 Maximum Horsepower: 382 Group B Average Horsepower: 434 Minimum Horsepower: 371 Maximum Horsepower: 464 Group C Average Horsepower: 636.7 Minimum Horsepower: 598 Maximum Horsepower: 677 Prototype Average Horsepower: 760 Minimum Horsepower: 695 Maximum Horsepower: 825 Here is another interesting stat - there are no V8s in the field whatsoever. MrChips fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Feb 14, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
OK, Mock Race 2 is in the books, and oh boy was it messy: It was cloudy and cool, with the threat of rain looming large at the start of the event. Everyone was watching and waiting for the skies to open up, and that they did in the fourth hour, the deluge coming and causing chaos on track and in the pits, as teams scrambled to keep up with the wild swings in weather. Many cars fell victim to the changing conditions, while others persevered and placed respectably.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
slothrop posted:I'm trying to improve my cars by turning out more efficient engines. My latest attempt drops fuel burn by ~ 20g/kWh and increases power by ~ 20hp. Yet when I load the "mod" motor into my car, it's slower. There is around a 6kg difference between the two motors but I would have thought the extra power would have made up for that. Any ideas what's going on here? Every time I aim for higher power and lower fuel burn I end up with a slower car, this is in both Group A and Group B. Torque curves are important, as well as gearing and a number of other factors. An engine that makes all of its power up high, and has has a narrow band between the torque peak and power peak might actually be slower than a car with a wider spread. Also, gearing is important; any time you change the engine you really do need to adjust your gear ratio spacing and top speed. Also, the shape of your engine power curve is very important too; ideally, you want the engine to rev a ways past peak power, ideally to the highest possible performance index (the number at the top of the stats block in the upper left of the engine design tabs). This way, when the car upshifts it starts much higher in the power curve in the higher gear than if the engine revved to peak power and that's it. Specifically for your entries slothrop, there are a couple of really simple tweaks that could make your cars quite a bit faster; if you want me to send them along, let me know - I've already had a couple entants ask for some advice, which I am more than happy to provide. Kilonum posted:Right, I'm doing two more rebuilds tonight after work. My group C is safe from getting cut (with the limited competition in that class, it will pick up an occasional class podium when the others have issues), however it is going to get some work to try to improve lap times What do you mean, "when they have issues"?! *looks at the pools of melted turbocharger under my entries* Oh, yeah...
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
So, this circus upped stakes and headed to sunny, warm central Florida, for the last-pre-season test before the SASC-89 season begins on Monday: Things have been shook up already - Victorian Hooray put their tremendous straight-line performance to good use here on the banking, and the Flamarbol team made huge gains in the intervening time between the last mock race and this one; even though the official timing shows the car a lap down, in reality they only *just* missed out on being on the lead lap with FISH and CMW by the narrowest of margins. Also, the weather forecasts for the first five rounds of the season are as follows:  An interesting mixed bag of weather - sunny and hot in Daytona, cool and cloudy at Sebring, hot, muggy and humid in Rio, likely rainy and cool in Buenos Aires and fair at Elkhart Lake.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
slothrop posted:Is it possible to test on the real world tracks in game? Yes it is! The Automation forums have you covered here. http://discourse.automationgame.com/c/sharing/test-track-sharing-forum There are a bunch of tracks in this challenge and the last one I did that aren't in here...Before you ask, yes I made them too and yes, I will be uploading them to the Automation forums (and here in a track pack) at some point, but 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
Everyone's latest revisions have been entered; all the latest scrutineering reports are in your Dropboxes. I am somewhat pleased and consternated to report that Kilonum has passed a magical milestone with his Prototype entry...I may have to respond, but perhaps not until Week 2. You have until tomorrow at 2359 GMT (6:59 PM Eastern Time) to get your revisions and pit strategies in for Week 1 of the season. After that, revisions will be restricted on the points system, and they along with any new pit strategies will not appear until Week 2.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
Cross-posting from my Automation thread in Games:quote:So with SASC-89 well under way now, I am brainstorming some ideas for my next Automation challenge - and don't worry, the turnaround on this challenge will be much less than the year between this and the previous challenge! If you guys have any ideas about what you'd like to see in the next Automation challenge(s), head on over to the other thread and post them there!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
SASC-89, Week 1 Preview Competitors in the SASC-89 Championship will need to hit the ground running in this first week of competition, with some of the fastest and most dangerous tracks in the entire circuit making up the first five events.  Daytona 24 Hours The first round starts under the late January sun in Florida, at the historic Daytona International Speedway. This track is unique in the SASC-89 Championship, being the only so-called "roval" track, sharing part of the banked stock-car circuit, as well as a sweeping infield road course. Speeds are high and brakes are pushed to their very limits here; expect lots of overtaking into the Bus Stop section half way around the banked track.  Sebring 12 Hours Round two goes just three hours driving to the south, at Sebring International Raceway. This track will challenge cars and drivers alike with the notoriously rough surface pounding the cars to pieces and upsetting the suspension and aero at every corner; fast straights and tight corners will make for lots of overtaking opportunities.  Rio de Janeiro 6 Hours The SASC heads south to sunny and hot Brazil for the first of two South American stops in the championship. The Autódromo Internacional Nelson Piquet, newly renamed after the mercurial three-time Formula One world champion, boasts long, flat straights and sweeping, medium and high-speed corners, favouring cars with lots of horsepower and downforce. The race is expected to be well-attended by a boisterous crowd, as it falls on the Carnival long weekend.  Buenos Aires 6 Hours Round 4 of the SASC marks the return of professional motorsport to Argentina, having been absent for the last eight years on account of low interest, the Falklands War, civil unrest and a rapidly worsening economy. In spite of this, the teams are looking forward to racing on one of the fastest circuits in the championship; the Autodromo Juan y Oscar Galvez boasts long high-speed straights and sweeping corners, where horsepower and momentum are everything.  Road America 6 Hours The end of this first week of the championship brings us deep into rural Wisconsin for the six-hour race at the challenging Road America circuit. Dubbed by some as "America's Nurburgring", this heavily forested track poses many challenges to cars and drivers alike, with fast straights, sweeping corners, tight chicanes and elevation changes, this track has a little of everything in its layout. Expect an exciting race!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
WAR OF ATTRITION: CMW Scores A Narrow Win Overall, Flamarbol Has A Huge Day At Daytona Opener DAYTONA - In a thrilling and brutally challenging race under sweltering conditions, CMW drew the first blood of the 1989 SASC season, their #4 prototype winning a narrow victory over the #5 and #6 NEMW entries, both of them less than half a lap behind the #4 CMW after two sweeps of the clock. This feat was all the more incredible considering that lead #3 CMW prototype exited the race very early, having completed just a single lap before the engine failed spectacularly along the back straight. The CMW prototype was also joined on the podium by the German-Canadian company's Group C entry, the #61 976 3.8 RSR finishing 662 laps in what was otherwise an unremarkable race for that team. Like the prototype, the sister #62 car experienced a race-ending engine failure in the overnight hours, just shy of the halfway mark. Unremarkable, on the other hand, cannot be used to describe Victorian Hooray Racing's first race of the year, with both the #37 and #38 V12 Specials crashing in the first two hours. Ultimately, these accidents cost the team the class victory, as the margin of victory over the second-place #38 was less than the time it spent being repaired in the garage, and the #37 finishing fifth in class. NEMW was able to capitalise on the weaknesses of both CMW and VH Racing, the #51 Assabet GT-R cruising to an easy third place in class; the sister #50 car was plagued with reliability problems all race long and finished fourth in class. Group B was a battle of attrition, with nearly every car in the class being involved in an accident or having a mechanical failure at some point during the race. Ultimately, the #12 Flamarbol GrB came out on top, in spite of a twenty-minute visit to the garage in the fifth hour after that car found the oil slick left behind by the #17 LATOY RM2000, that car having just experienced a race-ending engine failure a couple laps prior - a fate that also befell the sister #16 RM2000 in the wee hours of the morning. Flamarbol's sister entry struggled with tricky handling all race and crashed on two separate occasions, ultimately finishing fourth in class in spite of this. NEMW was able to overcome lengthy accident repairs to both entries, the #53 and #52 cars finishing second and fifth in class respectively. In third place, the #88 Automurdermotive Fiasco Furiouso was the only car in the class to avoid any sort of incident in their campaign, thus reaping the reward for their careful driving and attentive preparations for the race. Group A was the direct contract to the other classes, the race among these cars being relatively clean and trouble-free. Ultimately, the #2 FISH Aluvera R0 crossed the line first in class, the Hispano-Italian team's car enjoying a substantial lead over second and third place Flamarbol as the flag dropped. The sister #1 car was not so lucky, its engine letting go in spectacular fashion in the second hour of the race, necessitating a lengthy caution to clean up the mess left behind by the stricken car. CMW finished fourth and fifth in class, the 976 3.5 RS struggling to match the straight-line speed of both the FISH and the Flamarbol cars ahead of them. Automurdermotive's V12 Fiascos came sixth and eighth in class, their tiny, high-revving V12 engines delighting the crowds with a soundtrack reminiscent of a Formula One car of a decade past. NEMW had a challenging race, their Hoosic SE-Rs struggling with overheating issues under the hot Florida sun, which ultimately led to the demise of the #55 car just as the light started to break on the horizon overnight. LATOY finished ninth and tenth in class, running a clean, if uneventful race, avoiding the issues that plagued their rivals NEMW, earning them a healthy lead over the New England-based team in the Constructor Championship standings. Prototype Winner: #4 CRT-CMW Turbo (Overall Winner)  Second Place: #6 CRT-NEMW Neponset Third Place: #5 CRT-NEMW Neponset Group C Winner: #61 CMW 976 3.8 RSR  Second Place: #38 VH Racing V12 Special Third Place: #51 NEMW Assabet GT-R Group B Winner: #12 Flamarbol GrB  Second Place: #53 NEMW Merrimack GT-R Third Place: #88 Automurdermotive Fiasco Furiouso Group A Winner: #2 FISH Aluvera R0  Second Place: #21 Flamarbol GrA Third Place: #20 Flamarbol GrB Race Results  Constructor Championship (Click for big)  Revision Point Status 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 05:18 |
|
|
DELUGED - NEMW, VH Racing Win Big In Waterlogged Sebring Race SEBRING - After a chaotic opening round in Daytona, the teams all looked forward to a quieter, less challenging second round just down the road at Sebring. Mother Nature, on the other hand, had other plans; the weather was dark, cool and overcast at the start of the race. By one in the afternoon, the skies opened up and indundated the track, the heavy rain only lightening up briefly in the ninth hour. The race continued nonetheless, with the cars fighting the rough, slippery concrete surface, standing water and cool temperatures as much as each other. When the chequered flag dropped at 9PM, both CRT-NEMW Neponset prototypes were there to take the class and overall victory, the winning #6 car covering 325 laps at an average speed of 178.727 kilometres per hour. Two laps back from the winners, the #3 CRT-CMW Turbo rounded out the Prototype-class podium. In Group C, VH Racing was finally able to show their fine form, sweeping the top two spots in class and shutting the door on the two CMW 976s, both of them finishing two laps back of the V12 Specials. Bother NEMW Assabet GT-Rs struggled considerably in the challenging conditions, that car's huge power proving to be as much a liability as a benefit on the wet concrete. The same cannot be said about NEMW's Group B entries, with the #53 Merrimack GT-R notching the team's first win of the season in dramatic fashion, finishing barely a minute up on the two Flamarbol GrBs. Had the #52 not crashed heavily in the fifth hour, NEMW would have cut Flamarbol's lead in half in the Constructor Championship. Automurdermotive showed fine form one again, the #89 finishing fourth in class. The lead #88 car was at one point running as high as third in class, but an untimely spin at Sunset Corner sent that car into the barrier and to the garage for repairs. LATOY ran a competent race, experiencing none of the difficulties that hampered their Daytona race and notching their first Constructor points of the season. True to their name, FISH took to the wet conditions with aplomb, absolutely dominating their rivals in Group A for their second win of the season, the #1 Aluvera finishing five laps ahead of the #21 Flamarbol GrA. Along with their sister #20 car, the team battled tooth and nail with NEMW for third through sixth place; only in the last half hour, when the #55 Hoosic SE-R ground to a halt with engine failure, did the #54 slow down to preserve the position. CMW finished a lap back of the Flamarbols and the remaining NEMW, a noticeable tension filling the garage with yet another disappointing finish. Automurdermotive finished eighth and ninth in class, running a quiet, uneventful race, finishing nine laps off the pace as their car struggled with its speed and acceleration. LATOY brought up the rear, but with both TM2000s finishing again, they opened up their lead over NEMW in the Constructor Championship, proving once again that it is just as important to finish as it is to place well. Prototype Winner: #6 CRT-NEMW Neponset (Overall Winner)  Second Place: #5 CRT-NEMW Neponset Third Place: #3 CRT-CMW Turbo Group C Winner: #38 VH Racing V12 Special  Second Place: #37 VH Racing V12 Special Third Place: #62 CMW 976 3.8 REAR Group B Winner: #53 NEMW Merrimack GT-R  Second Place: #12 Flamarbol GrB Third Place: #11 Flamarbol GrB Group A Winner: #1 FISH Aluvera R0  Second Place: #2 FISH Aluvera R0 Third Place: #21 Flamarbol GrA Race Results:  Constructor Standings (Click for bigger):  Current Revision Points: 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2017 01:40
|
|