AVUS Grosser Preis von Berlin 1991 [FINISHED, RESULT INSIDE]

[BurningBridges]

And as to a new race, currently there will be a longer pause (rl). Races at an earlier time are a possibility, maybe something in the 1970s? Perhaps something crazy like a Can Am event in West Berlin??

First need to think if I can make a better version of the race track, how this could be made more interesting in general and when I have time. Also I will probably no more be able to check cars individually as I did, cars will have to adhere to the naming guidelines and a general procedure will be taken for insufficient cooling and stuff, that was all a bit more work that I had hoped.

Still the 2 reunification events were still great fun and have yielded great knowledge about cars performance, cost efficiency and the AVUS track.

[squidhead]

Based on percentage of the air supply not being sufficient, I am guessing. As the race goes on, the engine is running hotter and hotter, and loses power. This should be tested but how about

each 5% of insufficient cooling (950 cooling where 1000 is needed), will add extra 0.05 second of extra lap time each 2nd lap. As in in 2 laps it's 0.05, in 4 laps it's 0.1, i 6 laps it's 0.15 etc etc. So in the course of 40 laps you're losing a second off your lap time due to engine running overly hot and not having enough cold air to breathe freely. If the total amount of penalties go over for example 2 seconds per lap, you start losing 0.05 seconds per lap on EACH lap (cause engine is really about to die), and when you get to 3 seconds per lap slower - the engine locks shut and you suffer an accident (locked engine at 350kph, that's a given)

[BurningBridges]

Interesting, but one thing I already know is that running at optimum cooling kills most possible gains through extra hp. I tried that before the second race and didnt like it. So it would be a feature that is hard to balance.

Also check my mtbf calculations I did somewhere else (if you can locate them). They showed that reliability of 30 or 40 is absolutely enough, chance to fail is only 2-3% over a 1000km race.

But I like the general idea of allowing any possible value for reliability ( provided the car does calculate something in the Overview tab ), and penalize percentage differences somehow, that could make it a bit easier to handle the competition too.

[BurningBridges]

And by the way, I would offer you to run a competition yourself (would hand over all my excel sheets), because it could produce a few new ideas.

My long term plan was to make a race on the extended Dessau track which would be faster still than the Avus, but also have a sector with some corners.

[squidhead]

actually, now that I think of it - adding a specific amount of seconds is not going to work. It should be adding a time multiplier. Like not 0.05 seconds extra, but the multiplier would be x1,005 and not 0.1 seconds but x1,01. That way more faster cars will suffer more, whille leaving the penalty thresholds still measured in seconds per lap lost would mean there won't be a specific "If i chose this much cooling % then I will guarantee finish race"

[squidhead]

Also, no, thanks. I got to figure out where to take this top speed dessau thing and how to make it better first. Maybe later, running 2 competitions would be harder and produce no results. I think concentrating on 1 thing is much better

[BurningBridges]

Ok, just meant you can do it if you want and because I cant for rl

actually, now that I think of it - adding a specific amount of seconds is not going to work. It should be adding a time multiplier. Like not 0.05 seconds extra, but the multiplier would be x1,005 and not 0.1 seconds but x1,01. That way more faster cars will suffer more, whille leaving the penalty thresholds still measured in seconds per lap lost would mean there won't be a specific "If i chose this much cooling % then I will guarantee finish race"

I think it is actually more complicated but in any case (Time including cooling time penalty) Tc is = laptime * 1+n with n being somehow calculated from the delta between cooling vs cooling required. The integral over 1+n (from 0 to number of laps) could be used to calculate the precise track time. Any linear factor for n is probably b/s because a really clever guy could calculate a formula for the optimum absolute cooling (there is a gain in speed/laptime for every KJ/s which can be maximized vs the cooling time penalty, if you understand enough math).

This is to say that coming up with some formula is one thing but balancing all the repercussions beforehand is quite another.

Another thing is that afaik race cars actually become faster with each lap, because of the decreasing weight of fuel. Then they go to pits to refuel and the same patterns start again.

[AirJordan]

Niiiceee 3rd place with a sedan

[BurningBridges]

"Air-Resistance"Jordan

[BurningBridges]

Sorry long post

Concerning discussion about reliability I have copied a relevant section from a post by strop

Engine reliability automatically drops to 0 when the ventilation of the engine is less than half that which is required.

This goes with my observations although not down to a t. When the required cooling of the engine is 1000 reliability drops to zero at ca 500 but not precisely

The 'overall reliability' figure given in the Trim section is merely the averages of the reliability of the engine plus the reliability of other components. Thus the overall reliability will not automatically go to 0 when it is less than 50, but only when the engine reliability is 0.

This is still not 100% understood on my part. But <50 total reliability is possible if you lower the reliability of other components. It gets down to ca 45.0 or so, how much does not depend on the engine.

The main problem is that one cannot tell what the reliability of the engine actually is after cooling has been accounted for. But based on previous builds, it seems that the relationship is mostly linear:

  Code:

For actual ventilation < required ventilation/2: Engine adjusted reliability = 0, Car reliability = 0

For required ventilation/2 =< actual ventilation =< required ventilation: Engine adjusted reliability = engine reliability * (2 - required ventilation/actual ventilation)

For actual ventilation > required ventilation: engine adjusted reliability = engine reliability

I think it's clear what the good strop is trying to tell us: when ventilation < 1/2 * required ventilation --> reliability drops to 0
And there is a formula to calculate engine reliability with respect to cooling. It takes some time to figure out his formula, but it can be done

Clear?

Hell no instead of this math talk I always need to see some actual calculation. I dont know about you, but I am not so much of a math guy, only when I see numbers it becomes clear.

What I can see without any calculation is that the current rule means that 1/2 * cooling * 50.0 reliability = 25.0

That means, if car reliability and engine reliability are both 50.0, the resulting reliability is 25.0
Now if this is MTBF (is it?) I could dig out this thing I did here not long ago:



That would mean if MTBF == 25(*1000 km?) --> Chance to fail in 1,000 km = 3,92%

Ok so I could make a spreadsheet where you enter actual cooling and cooling required, as well as engine reliability and it would give the resulting engine reliability (?)
It would normally be a value in the range of 20-45 and it could then be fed into the MTBF formula which gives the chance to finish the race, which would be ca 95% and up

I can say in advance that I dont like an random generation. But If we calculate the remaining percent into some sort of mechanical pit stop time, it would perhaps achieve what squidhead was suggesting (?) and without strop doing the facepalm (??)

[BurningBridges]

Since this was TLDR, the short version:

I think could make a spreadsheet which gives you the chance to finish if you enter 3 values. This would mean there would be no more magic numbers for reliability you could have anything you want (as long as the detail panel does not say tyres or engine went kaput), and instead of rolling a dice there could be a penalty based on the percentage.

However, what I described was based on strops formulas for the engine, which are actually quite simple to understand, but now what about the mechanical parts failing ...

[BurningBridges]

How about a 24h race? The reliability thing would make a whole lot more sense that way. 24h would be ca 6000km or 720 laps.
The cars would have to make stops according to their remaining chance to fail, just like the pit stop rule.

I am also thinking about a modern version of the handicap race, where cars would start according to their total expense per car. The most expensive cars start later, according to a formula.
That way there would be hardly any more magic numbers, just displacement and a requirement that the Details tab must show something.

[squidhead]

That would be an interesting idea.

[BurningBridges]

Here is just an example, the rules would really become quite simple.

rules_1996_01.jpg (160.71 KiB) Viewed 4137 times

The 2 new calculations of course need to be worked out and explained. The only one that is currently ready is the one for fuel.

The mechanical failure rule could be implemented first, one thing at a time. I am not absolutely sure about the handicap rule yet, perhaps at a later date.

[BurningBridges]

The problem with the handicap race is probably that it is either the winning strategy to build the cheapest car or the most expensive one, but not both.

Otherwise the idea was that every 1000 $ would result in some sort of additional seconds or fraction of seconds.