See the Challenger, Cruiser, and Adventure class results. I'll be posting more about the results later (maybe later tonight even).
For now, a few quick notes:
1) 11 out of 20 finishing cars in the Challenger class have a time ending in zero seconds, which is statistically so astronomically unlikely that I'm not even going to bother computing the chances... Why bother reporting time down to the second if it's clearly only recorded to the minute-ish?
2) Ardingly appears to have driven zero km on solar power... But because of this, they never took the grid charge in Alice Springs, and the reduction in "energy usage" (normalized relative to the top finishing car) gives them so many points that they ended up in 6th overall in the Cruiser class. I think WSC made a critical error here - similar to how teams get a zero on the "time" portion if they don't finish the race, I think non-finishing teams should have also gotten a zero on "energy" as well. Otherwise, it's ripe for a "The Producers" style strategy - aim to win by losing. Someone could have built a car with 0.1kWh of batteries, failed to finish the race, but their "Energy Usage" relative to the best finishing car would have netted them over 4400 points out of a possible 15 in the category! WUT.
3) Why doesn't WSC report miles driven on solar in the Cruiser results? I know it doesn't matter for the scoring, but it would be neat to know (for example) if Lodz did 2113km with a single person, or 1056km with two people in the car, or somewhere in between.