Quote from Dru :

Hey there,

As the person who came up with the UF Baby-R car (and part of the group that came up with the name and Fall-Out league) there is obviously no reason why you can not use the name UF Baby-R.

It is the name we gave to the new class of car, however I would suggest/advise that you called the XF restricted car something else.

The reason why should be obvious:

You will get people confused talking about different 'Baby' car's, which run with different restrictions.

Example, GT2 cars are not called GT Baby-R's they are called GT2.

Also you are/will be using it for your own league then maybe it is reward for you taking the time to properly balance them etc etc

You could call it in reality anything, but I personally wold prefer if you did not use the Baby-R name for the other FWD cars.

How about XF-Cadet or something like that, an idea thought is much more rewarding to see used that just using a name that someone else has already taken the time to think up


Cheers and Regards,


Dru.

Ok - I have an idea. Seeing as the UFR is like, cute and baby like, I'll stick with the UF-Baby-R (it's a common name now). Coz the XFR isn't so cute and baby-like, I'll call it the XF-JR - XF Junior R.
OK? BTW - that's copyright now

The UF Baby-R thing is fine as that is what it is (as long as you keep the 45% restriction on it of course)

Nice name for the XFR

Quote from Dru :

Hey there,

As the person who came up with the UF Baby-R car (and part of the group that came up with the name and Fall-Out league) there is obviously no reason why you can not use the name UF Baby-R.

It is the name we gave to the new class of car, however I would suggest/advise that you called the XF restricted car something else.

The reason why should be obvious:

You will get people confused talking about different 'Baby' car's, which run with different restrictions.

Example, GT2 cars are not called GT Baby-R's they are called GT2.

Also you are/will be using it for your own league then maybe it is reward for you taking the time to properly balance them etc etc

You could call it in reality anything, but I personally wold prefer if you did not use the Baby-R name for the other FWD cars.

How about XF-Cadet or something like that, an idea thought is much more rewarding to see used that just using a name that someone else has already taken the time to think up


Cheers and Regards,


Dru.

first time i heard the "baby" add on to the name was the baby 935 in the late '70's that ran in the german group 5 championship,not sure if it was an official name or just what the uk mags called it.
if memory serves me right it was done because zacspeed said that porsche were taking the easy route by running in the top catagory rather than compete with their small engined turbo capri so porsche built a 1.4 turbo 935, raced 3 times retired first 2 times then won third time, porsche then retired it having proved a point. what i found interesting as a then youngster was that it produced so much heat that they had to introduce a double rear bulkhead and double glazing on the rear window and i've a vague memeory of possibly aircon being installed in the end.

I present to you the newly created

UF-Nearly Dead-1

Its is the the UF1 but with 50% restriction 50 KG added mass, 3 passengers (mandatory ) and a full tank of fuel. Designed to compete with cyclists or runners

Some stats:

70 MPH Top speed
24 BHP of RAW POWER
0-60 MPH in about 46 seconds (If it ever gets to 60)

Enjoy!

Quote from JO53PHS :

I present to you the newly created

UF-Nearly Dead-1

Its is the the UF1 but with 50% restriction 50 KG added mass, 3 passengers (mandatory ) and a full tank of fuel. Designed to compete with cyclists or runners

Some stats:

70 MPH Top speed
24 BHP of RAW POWER
0-60 MPH in about 46 seconds (If it ever gets to 60)

Enjoy!

Only 50 kg?

Try that on the oval.

Anyony have a base setup for the UFR-babyR?, if i might be so bold as to call it that

Regards
Franke... Click

Quote from Franke :

Anyony have a base setup for the UFR-babyR?, if i might be so bold as to call it that

Regards
Franke... Click

is not a base setup, but for a 30s search, not bad

http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=654185#post654185

We tried your restrictions today, and it is WAY off, in the end, no one selected the Restricted UFR as the Restricted XFR was close to 3 seconds pr. lap faster than the Restricted UFR... We drove on KY National...

Regards
Franke... Click

Quote from Franke :

We tried your restrictions today, and it is WAY off, in the end, no one selected the Restricted UFR as the Restricted XFR was close to 3 seconds pr. lap faster than the Restricted UFR... We drove on KY National...

Regards
Franke... Click

That much?

We tested them on the LFS BC mini-meet on Sat, round SO Chicane Rev, which I would consider to be a XFR track cos of the two long straights, and the difference was 3 tenths of a second.

BTW - here are two base setups.
http://www.lfsforum.net/attach ... id=46404&d=1199435046 - XF-JR

http://www.lfsforum.net/attach ... id=46403&d=1199435046 - UF-BR

anyone tried a restricted XRG? loads of fun!

I still go for the weight restricted FZR (max weight added to 100% front, 400BHP coming to about 55/45 balance) as that might possibly be the most fun car setup in LFS.

Still, great idea of rebalancing the classes. It sure is to bringe a bit of change to the racing.

I have a question.

XFR is by "Nature" faster than UFR in most tracks. Then why restrict it LESS than the UFR?

Quote from Kaw :

I have a question.

XFR is by "Nature" faster than UFR in most tracks. Then why restrict it LESS than the UFR?

The XFR has a bigger engine, therefore it is affected more by engine restriction.

On KY National, the Restricted XFR had a top speed of 181 to 185, and the best anyone achieved in the Restricted UFR was 172 i think... So XFRr has WAY to much power at 43%, i suggest that we try a few tests with 45% setting... We have to find the correct setting, otherwise the UFRr will die, in these matched Restricted UFR+XFR races... And it would be bad to have different restrictions, as it has happened with the GTRr class, as CTRA has one restriction spec and MoE has another one

Regards
Franke... Click

Quote from J@tko :

The XFR has a bigger engine, therefore it is affected more by engine restriction.

Well I drove the race Franke was talking about. And it seemed that 43 % Was a little to less. But again. The Dev's made theese so they would have their glory on different tracks. So on tracks like FE1 or something it might be good. But on KY2, it was Waaaaay to little.

Quote from Kaw :

Well I drove the race Franke was talking about. And it seemed that 43 % Was a little to less. But again. The Dev's made theese so they would have their glory on different tracks. So on tracks like FE1 or something it might be good. But on KY2, it was Waaaaay to little.

I've just done some more testing with these cars, and the current restrictions will stay as the official Mini FWD GTR restrictions:
XFR: 43%
UFR: 45%

There is a problem with balancing these two cars more than any others, as it it harder to balance lower powered cars than it is to do higher powered ones. On the tracks that I would envision these cars running (short FE, short AS, BL, SO - NOT AS GP or WE or KY) then they are matched very well.

The UF-BR has 80 bhp, the XF-JR 108 bhp. The XFR has 230 bhp and the UFR 180 bhp. I cannot cater for high speed tracks (e.g KY NA) as the top speed of the XFR is so much higher because
A) it's more powerful
B) it's more aerodynamically efficient

The respective P to W ratios for the XF-JR is 128 bhp/ton, and the UF-BR 135 bhp/ton. If I decreased the power on the XF-JR, it's speed on slower tracks would be alot slower than the UF-BR.

It's the best compromise, IMO, for the tracks that these cars are designed to race on. The UFR is so boxy that with less power, it has no chance even against a less powerful XFR.