The Best Player's Car Challenge

[LABenterprises]

 

Rules

1. Entries must use only stock parts, textures will not matter.

2. RCS and reaction wheels will not be allowed.

3. Entries will be judged on performance by lap times and speed while fun, flexibility, and looks will be judged trough polls.

 

Categories

Fun

The idea of this category is pretty much what it sounds like, how much fun is car to drive around the KSC or across the terrain of Kerbin.

Flexibility

This category will test how flexible a cars applications are. For instance, if a car is designed for the track only and will easily be damaged or destroyed on rough terrain, it is not very flexible. 

Performance

This will test how the cars perform around a track and in a straight line.

For the track I will be using the Kurburgring.

Straight line performance will test how quickly a car can pass the SPH on the runway without the engines being allowed to spool up.

Looks

This basically judges craft on whether or not they look good.

 

Stages

Since this challenge will have multiple aspects I've decided to split things up into three main categories.

 

 

Entry Submissions

 During this stage entries will be submitted for the competition.

Judging

In this stage the cars will be tested to evaluate their performance and judged through polls in the other categories. For lap times I will require a video or a screenshot on every other corner. For straight line speed I will need a screenshot of the car at the point of the runway I have marked with a red line. 

Results

In this stage an overall winner will be chosen and I will type up a story about the competition staring Jeb and Val. 

 

While this is a competition where the winner will be the most well rounded car I don't necessarily want to see an entry trying to achieve that at a cost. What I would love to see are entries that show how you make cars in KSP, that use every bit of knowledge you know to make a car excel in certain areas, that are created the way you want. I don't want anyone to surrender their strong suits and preferred methods just to have a better chance at winning, If you like making cars that are a joy to drive but aren't that fast, then make your entry as fun to play with as possible.

 

Current Entries

@Dark Lion Essar Bean https://kerbalx.com/DarkLion/Essar-Bean

@Azimech Citroen CX https://kerbalx.com/Azimech/77I-Car-with-adjustable-ride-height-Citroen-CX

@LABenterprises Destiny https://kerbalx.com/LABenterprises/LAB-DESTINY

EsnianMetalWorks E.M.W Storm X-1 https://kerbalx.com/EsnianMetalWorks/EMW-Storm-X-1

 

Performance Data

	Kurburgring Lap	Straight Line Speed	Straight Line Time
L.A.B. Destiny	1:01	83.9 mps	0:22 sec
E.M.W Storm X-1	1:05	81.0 mps	0:25 sec
Essar Bean	2:04	28.2 mps	0:44 sec
Citroen CX Rally	1:55	117.4 mps	0:19 sec

Performance Winner: L.A.B. Destiny

 

Flexibility 

Winner: Essar Bean

Edited December 18, 2017 by LABenterprises

[Dark Lion]

I could definitely get behind this. I'm currently still working on sub-models, but I'm sitting on 4 stylish rovers, each with their own dedicated roles and one for customization/versatility. Might be a week before they're ready... You want the whole car-hauler or just pick the best one of them?  

[LABenterprises]

3 hours ago, Dark Lion said:

I could definitely get behind this. I'm currently still working on sub-models, but I'm sitting on 4 stylish rovers, each with their own dedicated roles and one for customization/versatility. Might be a week before they're ready... You want the whole car-hauler or just pick the best one of them?  

That's awesome, I'm still not sure whether or not I'll allow multiple entries so I'd probably just go with the best one.

[Dark Lion]

I just happened upon your KerbalX cars and by the Kraken, that looks intimidating!!! I've a lot to learn about KSP parts configurations just by the look there, but here's a little appetizer of the WIP for you to sample the style anyway.


Please note the beauty leaning by the doors... is not a car... but it literally flies LOL

Edit: I think I've got uploads figured out at long last  

Edited October 2, 2017 by Dark Lion
Pic fails by noobness (again)

[LABenterprises]

13 hours ago, Dark Lion said:

I just happened upon your KerbalX cars and by the Kraken, that looks intimidating!!! I've a lot to learn about KSP parts configurations just by the look there, but here's a little appetizer of the WIP for you to sample the style anyway.
https://imgur.com/mFvC456

Left to right: Bo, Ripper, Boose RS, Essar Bean and Boose LT

Please note the beauty leaning by the doors... is not a car... but it literally flies LOL

Edit: I've had loads of trouble getting consistent results posting pics here on the forums. I think I'm missing out on the proper way to embed here?

Those are very nice cars, I like the bike! For pictures I usually post them on Imgur, copy the url, go to KerbalX and begin to upload a craft, paste the url in the upload page and let it fix the url to get an image, and finally copy the fixed url and paste it on the forum. Its tedious but it gets the job done. 

[Dark Lion]

4 hours ago, LABenterprises said:

For pictures I usually post them on Imgur, copy the url, go to KerbalX and begin to upload a craft, paste the url in the upload page and let it fix the url to get an image, and finally copy the fixed url and paste it on the forum. Its tedious but it gets the job done. 

Do you actually *have* an Imgur account? I now believe that was my problem. BBC embedded no problem after I made an account... Seems ridiculous, but it beats the hoop-hopping.

[Azimech]

I'm wondering though:
" without the engines being allowed to spool up. "

What's the reasoning behind this?

And I have something, a stock rally car. Not the fastest one in cornering but pretty okay for rough terrain.

It uses "hydraulics" to change ride height.

[selfish_meme]

That is not my challenger just an entry for best dressed, so jets and rockets are OK?

[selfish_meme]

On 15/10/2017 at 8:10 PM, Azimech said:

I'm wondering though:
" without the engines being allowed to spool up. "

What's the reasoning behind this?

 

I think he means it will be stage and go, not a standing start with full jet power

[selfish_meme]

So I have been working on a car, and Jebediah Andretti took it for a spin, I have a little video of going around the course too, right now trying to figure out best way to upload it, gif or youtube because it's 1.23m long

 

 

Edited October 18, 2017 by selfish_meme

[LABenterprises]

On 10/15/2017 at 4:10 AM, Azimech said:

I'm wondering though:
" without the engines being allowed to spool up. "

What's the reasoning behind this?

And I have something, a stock rally car. Not the fastest one in cornering but pretty okay for rough terrain.

It uses "hydraulics" to change ride height.

This should be a great competitor! I figured the best way to keep straight line results consistent and fair was to start the engines the moment the car pulls away. If one car has built up more thrust than another when it releases its brakes and boost flaps, it would have a slight advantage. However, I am open for any suggestions that would allow for cars to use their full power from the start. Also sorry for responding so late, its been a while since I checked on this.   

On 10/18/2017 at 7:28 AM, selfish_meme said:

So I have been working on a car, and Jebediah Andretti took it for a spin, I have a little video of going around the course too, right now trying to figure out best way to upload it, gif or youtube because it's 1.23m long

 

 

Looks good, Also jets and rockets will be allowed.

 

Also for the Challenge I will be entering my Destiny.

Edited October 20, 2017 by LABenterprises

[Dark Lion]

On 10/20/2017 at 10:15 AM, LABenterprises said:

I figured the best way to keep straight line results consistent and fair was to start the engines the moment the car pulls away. If one car has built up more thrust than another when it releases its brakes and boost flaps, it would have a slight advantage. However, I am open for any suggestions that would allow for cars to use their full power from the start.

I've been working on this very recently, in attempts to race different vehicles simultaneously, and with some interesting (and frustrating) results.

The first problem I ran into came with load-in height when using launch clamps:
     Each vehicle must be manually merged, then level with the "start line" craft, the runway, and the opposing vehicle(s) simultaneously. Yeah, and don't forget to line them to the nose so no one gets a head start... Not only can this be an extremely tedious task because it has to be so near exact, but also because the load-in on the runway is so hopelessly inconsistent until it is exact, simply because you need those clamps to hold the cars in place to wind up their fidget spinners. 

The second problem, I still can't quite wrap my head around.
    What happens when one cars is over-powered compared to the one it's racing? Thrust offset torque, that's what happens. See that stripey line down the middle of the track? It'll be the last time if you spool them up, because the more powerful of the vehicles will magically "stretch" away from the clamps, turning (sometimes destroying) the entire cars/start line assembly as the thrust increases. Clearly the race isn't to be had that can't drive the straight-n-narrow without racing straight off the side of the runway...

I'd throw 75 cents at change for a dollar though. After a gauntlet of merging attachment methods, reverting to SPH after mere seconds load-in and cooking my noodle, I can consistently keep a rocket vs jet race on a start line assembly. A race. Total thrust offset torque in excess of 3400kNm.

So far, decouplers have proven most stable to counter high thrust offset torque, but require great deal of patience and precision and the merging racecars must have a free attachment node that isn't an engine.

[Azimech]

1 hour ago, Dark Lion said:

I've been working on this very recently, in attempts to race different vehicles simultaneously, and with some interesting (and frustrating) results.

The first problem I ran into came with load-in height when using launch clamps:
     Each vehicle must be manually merged, then level with the "start line" craft, the runway, and the opposing vehicle(s) simultaneously. Yeah, and don't forget to line them to the nose so no one gets a head start... Not only can this be an extremely tedious task because it has to be so near exact, but also because the load-in on the runway is so hopelessly inconsistent until it is exact, simply because you need those clamps to hold the cars in place to wind up their fidget spinners. 

The second problem, I still can't quite wrap my head around.
    What happens when one cars is over-powered compared to the one it's racing? Thrust offset torque, that's what happens. See that stripey line down the middle of the track? It'll be the last time if you spool them up, because the more powerful of the vehicles will magically "stretch" away from the clamps, turning (sometimes destroying) the entire cars/start line assembly as the thrust increases. Clearly the race isn't to be had that can't drive the straight-n-narrow without racing straight off the side of the runway...

I'd throw 75 cents at change for a dollar though. After a gauntlet of merging attachment methods, reverting to SPH after mere seconds load-in and cooking my noodle, I can consistently keep a rocket vs jet race on a start line assembly. A race. Total thrust offset torque in excess of 3400kNm.

So far, decouplers have proven most stable to counter high thrust offset torque, but require great deal of patience and precision and the merging racecars must have a free attachment node that isn't an engine.

First solution: Boost Flaps. Look for "installation guide" on kerbalX.

Second solution: search for Drag Race Launcher on kerbalX.

[selfish_meme]

This isn't an entry but I have a save file with flags on corners and exploratory lap video uploaded soon, the save file has a test racer in it, no pod so Take Command or add a pod to detach

save file

 

Edited October 27, 2017 by selfish_meme

[Dark Lion]

9 hours ago, Azimech said:

First solution: Boost Flaps. Look for "installation guide" on kerbalX.

Second solution: search for Drag Race Launcher on kerbalX.

TL;DR?

Don't go cheap on me alright? I'm about to begin a small test group of Juno racing around a week from now and want to see Vectors racing before I leave the race, so to speak. I didn't have any previous experience with this racing thing until very recently and the attempt I'm failing at needs no boost flaps because rockets rip them right off and my clamps system (previous post) hold the cars straight enough to leap into the ocean from the end of the runway while using jets. Note the car on the right in my last pic posted here has 2 Vectors... yet neither decoupler or clamp assembly will overheat due to the thrust vector being far enough from the parts. Boost flaps obsolete; cars' potential curb weight lowered. If I add a more powerful rocket-powered car on its left, everything gets turned to the right. Ramps, clamps, decouplers, strutting... all at once... how do you hold beastly racing land-rockets in place without breaking everything?

!!!AND PLEASE STOP OFFERING MODS OR CHEATS AS ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS!!! 
That's not just at you, Azimech. But that's about 95% of the "help" I've gotten. "Have you tried no crash damage and stuff?" and "You could maybe do boost flaps with ignore max heat." but mostly "You have to use this mod to get that mod and it doesn't work without this mod and the one you're using doesn't play nice with the one you really need."

You're being hailed from a laptop I've been abusing and misusing for almost 8 years. Not everyone can participate in racing if they need all the latest computer hardware just to test their cars out. My aim is to make this entire system stable and simple... completely stock if I can, and with as few parts as possible.

 

 

Edited October 27, 2017 by Dark Lion

[Slam_Jones]

Just curious: does the vector-powered car have a spool-up time?  If not, then is it possible to let the jet-powered car spool up on its own, then once it reaches maximum standing thrust, start the vector-powered car and let them both go at the same time?  I.e. let the jets spool up to full before activating the vectors.  Or would that still twist the starting line/gate thing?

Another thought: is it possible to offset the more powerful car to bring the thrust torque lower?  Sure, one would likely be closer to the edge of the runway than the other, but if they both stay on a straight-line course, would it be beneficial?

Edit: another though: place a fuel tank at the back of the gate, and offset it laterally before launching to counter the thrust torque.  You could even potentially allow fuel flow from it, so that the vehicles can spool up without using their own on-board fuel.

My only other suggestions would be mod-related, but it looks like a few folks want to avoid that.

Edited October 27, 2017 by Slam_Jones

[Dark Lion]

On 10/27/2017 at 5:11 PM, Slam_Jones said:

Just curious: does the vector-powered car have a spool-up time?  If not, then is it possible to let the jet-powered car spool up on its own, then once it reaches maximum standing thrust, start the vector-powered car and let them both go at the same time?  I.e. let the jets spool up to full before activating the vectors.  Or would that still twist the starting line/gate thing?

The Vector is a stock LF/O engine, therefore it's full thrust potential is instantaneous. I suppose one might gradually increase fuel flow to simulate spooling, but your suggestion makes more sense, even while the offset torque will still increase due to the jets increasing thrust while the rocket-powered side has to wait. For the design which provoked the question, the offset torque would be minimal, actually. However, on the "GO!" moment when the Vectors ignite, the entire framework and both vehicles would be violent steered in the direction of the lesser TWR (the jet-powered side, in this case) and ultimately not make it down the runway (or it might, but in pieces...) Naturally, I'm trying to get some consistent results. The launcher you see will work as long as the thrust offset torque doesn't exceed an amount I've yet to determine exactly. So far, I know it's above 4000kNm. <---I'm struggling to make that number more exact.

On 10/27/2017 at 5:11 PM, Slam_Jones said:

Another thought: is it possible to offset the more powerful car to bring the thrust torque lower?  Sure, one would likely be closer to the edge of the runway than the other, but if they both stay on a straight-line course, would it be beneficial?

As you might imagine, the potential TWR in more powerful vehicles like these often induces a little wobble at high speeds, in some cases... Best not to put them too near the edge of... well, anything. We're talking about others' vehicles submitted to be raced, so I'm stressing on practicality from those submissions and flexibility from my own launcher to make this thing happen on a competitive level.

On 10/27/2017 at 5:11 PM, Slam_Jones said:

Edit: another though: place a fuel tank at the back of the gate, and offset it laterally before launching to counter the thrust torque.  You could even potentially allow fuel flow from it, so that the vehicles can spool up without using their own on-board fuel.

I tried this. A great idea! So I thought, anyway. Perhaps I didn't do exactly what you suggest, but the destruction that ensues seem to be pretty consistent. I went ham'n'eggs making a "tire wall" out of full-to-the-brim ore tanks attached to the center-divider and the biggest stock fuel tanks like a wall behind the start line... and the cars immediately ripped the entire thing down the runway on spool start (just jets this time; no rockets.) After attaching the launch clamps again and testing began, I couldn't get things close enough to the ground on loading in. The craft gets unpacked too high... I assume that's because launch clamps force the height to a point just above your lowest parts' colliders.

I thought I might cleverly attach just one or two good-sized tanks just for a simple offset to sort of "balance" the offset torque, but the design fails that potential solution. If you look carefully, note the attachment point for the I-beams the decouplers are attached to... Because this is a centered attachment point, KSP physics apparently wants to ignore the fact that there are multiple launch clamps present and [not] holding it tightly in place. Laterally-attached, radially, it doesn't respond naturally and warp the frame, it just kinda... pivots. The ends of the outer I-beams hang freely, one side in front, the other just behind their corresponding clamps.

Good feedback @Slam_Jones. Cheers
@LABenterprises I hope this isn't considered a derailment of the thread and that you also stand to benefit from this particular banter in your coming competition.
As a side-note... I noticed my Essar Bean is in the running here and I have to express the fact that the reaction wheel in the HCES II probe core is still active. I latched onto the "flexibility" aspect due to the ability to land on any atmospheric body in the Kerbol system intact and collect science from multiple biomes. I either missed that rule or didn't want to see it... most of my rovers have some semblance of RWs (probably to right themselves after a flip or soften hard landings.) Do as you must, but please do let me know what you decide in case I need to send you something a little more performance-intense... 

[LABenterprises]

Performance data is in now. My Destiny takes the victory in this category although the E.M.W Storm X-1 is right on it's heels. I think I'll start the poll for best looking car soon.

Edited December 13, 2017 by LABenterprises

[LABenterprises]

You can find the poll here

[LABenterprises]

Just realized I tested the normal Citroen CX instead of the rally version by accident. The correct performance numbers are up now, the rally variant absolutely destroys the composition in strait line speed but doesn't have the handling to take the win from the Destiny.