International T/A Series [1968 Season] [Final Standings]

[np1993]

11th again!

[VicVictory]

The day's action at Tsukuba saw an unexpected shift in focus from the TU class to the TX class. For the first time in a good while, there was a shocking development with the big V8 beasts. oppositelock, who has been untouchable up until this point, met his match in the Brooke Tourer GT-R by Chipskate. To say it was a photo finish would be an understatement. In the end, it was declared an outright tie, and both were awarded first (no 2nd existed on the podium today).

TX class results for Tsukuba:

1st (TIE) - oppositelock and Chipskate - 2:18.42
3rd - luilakkie - 2:19.04
4th - LeSpass - 2:20.76
5th - RaduST - 2:21.65
6th - Weasel - 2:21.91
7th - Hermann95 - 2:22.03
8th - 8bs - 2:22.44
(Pace Car - VicVictory - 2:23.01)
9th - rileybanks - 2:23.51
10th - np1993 - 2:24.83
11th - vmo - 2:25.22
12th - HighOctaneLove - 2:26.57
13th - 3rayman3 - 2:29.07

TU class results for Tsukuba:

1st - oppositelock - 2:19.69
2nd - Luilakkie - 2:20.21
3rd - Chipskate - 2:20.61
4th - RaduST - 2:20.79
(Pace Car - VicVictory - 2:21.82)
5th - NormanVauxhall - 2:21.94
6th - 8bs - 2:22.48
7th - 3rayman3 - 2:23.13
8th - vmo - 2:23.46
9th - Weasel - 2:24.14
10th - hermmie - 2:24.81
11th - HighOctaneLove - 2:24.86

The competitors are now on their way to Florida for the final race of the year. Daytona Sports Course will be run on Thursday. Please pm me all legal changes by 9AM PST (UTC-8) on Thursday morning.

[np1993]

10th

[VicVictory]

The theme of the day for Daytona was survival. Seven cars retired early due to crashes or mechanical failures, including the pace car for the TU class. The end results changed the overall standings for a couple competitors in each class.

But with oppositelock's cars both completing the run without incident, both his TX and TU entries were crowned champion for the 1968 season.

TX results for Daytona:

1st - oppositelock - 2:19.90
2nd - Chipskate - 2:20.95
3rd - luilakkie - 2:11.11
4th - LeSpass - 2:23.81
5th - RaduST - 2:23.98
(Pace Car - VicVictory - 2:24.62)
6th - Weasel - 2:25.26
7th - 8bs - 2:27.24
8th - HighOctaneLove - 2:29.95
9th - 3rayman3 - 2:30.98
DNF - Hermann95
DNF - rileybanks
DNF - vmo
DNF - np1993

TU results for Daytona:

1st - oppositelock - 2:23.76
2nd - RaduST - 2:25.15
3rd - luilakkie - 2:25.66
4th - Chipskate - 2:26.72
5th - NormanVauxhall - 2:27.15
6th - HighOctaneLove - 2:30.74
7th - 8bs - 2:31.07
8th - Weasel - 2:31.94
9th - hermmie 2:35.12
(Pace Car - VicVictory - DNF)
DNF - 3rayman3
DNF - vmo

Thanks to all who competed this season! I will be making a post sometime soon for the next season in this series.

[Weasel]

Overall 6th and 9th

Next time I need more engine-power and less gearbox and suspension quality

[oppositelock]

That was fun. Thanks to Vic for hosting.

[8bs]

Grats to all! Let's wait for the next challenge!

[np1993]

What would cause the crashes?

[HighOctaneLove]

And so the final curtain closes on another year of high stakes racing with my entries being more competitive, yet still unable to get on the podium... Roll onwards to next year!!!

[Hermann95]

Wasn't too bad for my first season in this championship. Hopefully i can improove the car a bit for next season and fight for top 5 finishes.

[VicVictory]

What would cause the crashes?

As far as I can tell, it has something to do with aero. Wings, placement thereof, size, and aero inclination/downforce. rileybanks's car DNFed a lot because it had two rear wings. I found out last season from HighOctaneLove's submission that doesn't work well. Daytona turned out to be a really buggy track, so I may not use it next time around. Or I'll just post a giant warning that says "test it on that track before submitting, because that's the one that will probably fail."

[strop]

I can give you a bit more detail on this one: There are two main circumstances in which a car would fail to test.

1) The load on the tyres is too great, whether it's due to poor quality tyre, disproportionate or inappropriate widths, etc. This gives you a tyres blown warning. I get this a lot when trying to run 2500hp+ cars.

2) The lift on either half of the car exceeds the weight at either end of the car (as calculated by weight distribution over total weight), at any speed below maximum speed. That's obviously because the cars lift off This also gives you a tyres blown warning.

2b) The lift on either half of the car exceeds the weight at either end of the car WHILE travelling over a crest, such that the change in inclination reduces total weight because the reference point (the ground) is dropping away. So while your car may have passed the initial top speed testing, if it goes over a crest and the car gets airborne, well... as I'm so fond of linking to: flying car and more flying car. So basically if the numbers look like they're heading that way, this is what happened to your car Nordschleife is troublesome for this because it has some pretty big high speed crests and drops.

Solution to this: you CAN run a double wing on the back but you must have sufficiently low lift, or better, positive downforce on the front. Beware: high downforce in one area causes lift in the other, so you'll need to add something to the front. This is why the government doesn't like chavs putting big fat wings on their cars

Also, tracks with huge banking can be an issue if the car is literally too slow to make it around the banked portion of the track and may actually fall off. Overly high negative camber that also overwhelms the traction a car has will also cause a DNF.

[NormanVauxhall]

I'm satisfied enough with my BMMS.
Thanks for hosting the challenge!

[np1993]

I can give you a bit more detail on this one: There are two main circumstances in which a car would fail to test.

1) The load on the tyres is too great, whether it's due to poor quality tyre, disproportionate or inappropriate widths, etc. This gives you a tyres blown warning. I get this a lot when trying to run 2500hp+ cars.

2) The lift on either half of the car exceeds the weight at either end of the car (as calculated by weight distribution over total weight), at any speed below maximum speed. That's obviously because the cars lift off This also gives you a tyres blown warning.

2b) The lift on either half of the car exceeds the weight at either end of the car WHILE travelling over a crest, such that the change in inclination reduces total weight because the reference point (the ground) is dropping away. So while your car may have passed the initial top speed testing, if it goes over a crest and the car gets airborne, well... as I'm so fond of linking to: flying car and more flying car. So basically if the numbers look like they're heading that way, this is what happened to your car Nordschleife is troublesome for this because it has some pretty big high speed crests and drops.

Solution to this: you CAN run a double wing on the back but you must have sufficiently low lift, or better, positive downforce on the front. Beware: high downforce in one area causes lift in the other, so you'll need to add something to the front. This is why the government doesn't like chavs putting big fat wings on their cars

Also, tracks with huge banking can be an issue if the car is literally too slow to make it around the banked portion of the track and may actually fall off. Overly high negative camber that also overwhelms the traction a car has will also cause a DNF.

makes sense, the car had pretty low downforce on the front and decent downforce on the rear. I can be satisfied that it flew away to a better place

[VicVictory]

(slightly off topic, but inspired by strop's explanation)

If you like watching things fly that aren't supposed to... HYDROPLANES! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag6BgfFgikc