Holy crap! I didn't even know that Sisyphus ever ended, I assumed the computer generated the curve ahead of you as long as you were still moving, or just stopped at some ludicrously high point. We need to breed a finisher.
As for the torque issue, my best guesses are: that the torque rounding system is 'optimistic' so that any decimal number, no matter how small, will round up to the next whole number (perhaps to prevent exceptionally small and light cars from becoming immobilized, although I've never seen torque 1 before and don't know whether it can be attained); that there is a mass density factor of the shapes that is has a wide range, so a reasonably large piece may not contribute to a significant drop in torque (assume standard number rounding); that because the mass of the shapes (assuming identical densities) would be proportional to their areas a small piece being removed may only make a negligible difference in torque due to exceptionally small mass; errors in your observations - or any combination of the those things. I have no idea if the mass density actually varies at all, I'm just trying to make common-sense conjectures.
It is also worth nothing that since the torque equation involves division by the number of wheels, the torque outputs have much smaller values for equally massive cars with more wheels and so equally massive pieces would be allowed to break off on many-wheel cars without the computer rounding down the torque number (e.g., if a four-wheel car has torque 127.96, displayed as 128, and loses a piece that drops the torque by 0.42 to 127.54, it would still display 128, but if a two wheel car with proportional torque 255.92, displayed 256, lost a piece of the same mass, it would drop proportionally by 0.84 and round down to display 255 assuming standard rounding).
Last edited by Diseased
on Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.