Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: ArkAngel <DUNN@******.BITNET>
Subject: engine to chassis size ratio
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 93 12:57:00 EST
While I'm not a big carwars player, (I've played it once or twice, but
I don't own it) I have played a lot of battletech. And one thing about this
system that I like is the simplicity with which a mech is designed... Now while
I accept the fact that BattleTech's system is probably far too simple I suggest
that we take a look at a few aspects of it in regarding designing vehicles here
for SR (and not just 'cuz they're made by the same company...)
For starters, why don't we consider the basic concept of engine sizes.
Ya calculate what size engine you need by calculating how fast the car goes vs.
how fast the car weighs. For starters, why not say something along the lines
of 1 Nerp engine sizePkg/mph this would translate to a Mini from the chart R.
Hayden typed in (cleverly included here) needing an 8 Nerp engine simply to
move at 1 MPH, for it to 50, it would require a 400 Nerp engine, and for it to
go faster... well, you get the picture.

Name Weight (in kg) Nerps Nerps Needed to go 50MPH
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mini 400 800 400
Small 700 1400 700
Medium 1000 2000 1000
Large 1400 2800 1400
X-Large 1900 3800 1900

Now, at this point, I would toss in a few other suggestions viciously
ripped off from Battletech... How about instead of assigning the above weights
as that of strictly the chassis why not assign that to the weight of the whole
vehicle, and just say, (liberally enough) that cargo allowing for up to x
passengers and their gear isn't going to effect weight all that much...
Admittedly that makes more sense in Battletech that it does here, but...
Well, to continue, this would also allow for the opportunity of perhaps
a Polymer Chassis, which would have similar capabilities of a regular chassis,
but with a higher expense, and a halved weight.
Also, by changing the Nerps allocated to Kg/MPH ratio, we could easily
account for different types of engines...
Lastly, I would suggest that rather than having say a Mini chassis
being solely one classification, why not steal one more page from battletech,
and make a mini anything from say 250kg to 500kg, a small anything from 550 kg
to 800, etc... thus grading the size along a scale of either 25 or 50 kg units,
allowing for further specialization, and just using the classifications for
personal convenience...
Well, I've babbled enough for now... and most of it's probably
inaccurate anyways, but hey... it's my irrelevant babbling, and I like it...

"Watch your Back. Shoot Straight. Conserve Ammo.
And Never, Ever cut a deal with a Dragon."
dunn@******.jcu.edu

>>>>>[ArkAngel.Logout]>>>>>
Message no. 2
From: R Andrew Hayden <rahayden@*****.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU>
Subject: Re: engine to chassis size ratio
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 05:45:54 CET
On Mon, 1 Feb 1993, ArkAngel wrote:

>
> For starters, why don't we consider the basic concept of engine sizes.
> Ya calculate what size engine you need by calculating how fast the car goes
vs.
> how fast the car weighs. For starters, why not say something along the lines
> of 1 Nerp engine sizePkg/mph this would translate to a Mini from the chart
R.
> Hayden typed in (cleverly included here) needing an 8 Nerp engine simply to
> move at 1 MPH, for it to 50, it would require a 400 Nerp engine, and for it to
> go faster... well, you get the picture.

WOW! That's a huge bloody engine! Remember, 100 NERPS is roughtly equal
to the volume of one human.

Second, I think approaching it from the basis of a target speed is wrong.
Speed should be directly relational in an "engine power v. vehicle weight"
ratio. While this system in some ways accomplishes that, it approaches it
from the wrong way, IMNQSHO.

Furthermore, those engines are just way too huge. You are talking about
dedicating 50% of your car to an engine just to be able to move at 50MPH.
As a comparison, my engine on my car take up MAYBE 1/4 of the vehicle, and
it can easily hit 85 without breaking a sweat (now granted, it does have a
turbo on it, but still you get the point).


> Now, at this point, I would toss in a few other suggestions viciously
> ripped off from Battletech... How about instead of assigning the above weights
> as that of strictly the chassis why not assign that to the weight of the whole
> vehicle, and just say, (liberally enough) that cargo allowing for up to x
> passengers and their gear isn't going to effect weight all that much...
> Admittedly that makes more sense in Battletech that it does here, but...

Won't work. You have to have a "base" weight and then add the weight of
accessories. There are just way too many accessories available for a car
to ignore space and weights.

> Well, to continue, this would also allow for the opportunity of
perhaps
> a Polymer Chassis, which would have similar capabilities of a regular chassis,
> but with a higher expense, and a halved weight.

That's an accessory, to be disigned later.


> Lastly, I would suggest that rather than having say a Mini chassis
> being solely one classification, why not steal one more page from battletech,
> and make a mini anything from say 250kg to 500kg, a small anything from 550 kg
> to 800, etc... thus grading the size along a scale of either 25 or 50 kg
units,
> allowing for further specialization, and just using the classifications for
> personal convenience...

Haveing 5 different definable sizes eases the simplicity somewhat. In
addition, to allow nebular classifications invites a truly hedius pricing
and weight system, because it would not realistically be a linear
progression. With the 5 sizes, it keeps everything neat and straight forward.


> Well, I've babbled enough for now... and most of it's probably
> inaccurate anyways, but hey... it's my irrelevant babbling, and I like it...


Don't take what I said above to hard.


]> Robert Hayden <] [> This .signature has been made <]
]> <] [> with 85% recycled pixels. <]
]> rahayden@*****.weeg.uiowa.edu <]
]> aq650@****.INS.CWRU.Edu <]

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!