I was going to suggest Titanium as a good material, but then I remembered it has oxidation problems at high temperatures. Not good for a manifold.
I'd guess some sort of cromoly steel, as has been mentioned. That's pretty much the standard material for high performance applications.
I'd guess some sort of cromoly steel, as has been mentioned. That's pretty much the standard material for high performance applications.
Just make 'em all do three-point turns. That'll sort out the real drivers. 
Oh, and they should have to parrallel park into their pits.
Oh, and they should have to parrallel park into their pits.
Well, to be fair it's translated from the Japanese, so I don't know what word they are actually using, or if it's just "engrish". Whether or not it's a stupid term, it is useful to have a word for whatever you're doing when you aren't drifting.
(No, "Driving Properly" doesn't count, because it's a pain to say. :razz
The first few crashes in that vid make me wonder if something was wrong with the pacenotes--the drivers on that corner didn't even appear to be attempting to brake until it was too late.
Thoughts on 4-wheel drift... Warning, Initial D references ahead.
IMHO, the perfect control through a corner in a RWD car is one where you do not steer at all. You brake, turn slightly to initiate rotation, and then throughout the turn your steering wheel is held dead straight ahead--slip angles, inertia, and throttle control do everything for you. I'm not a good racer--I've only managed this feat exactly once, and it was pure luck, but it was an amazing feeling and I remember it distinctly. (it was the second curve of the esses on BL, and I was driving the XRT)
For fans of Initial D, think of the character "God-Hand" from the last season. Though Initial D gets a lot of details about racing wrong (I can't overemphasize this, Initial D is not always accurate), this was one case where they were on to something. A comment was made about his driving technique being "between drifting and gripping"--he's not gripping, because he doesn't steer into the turn, but he's not drifting because he's not countersteering either. Frankly, the name "God-Hand" is misleading--he's not skilled because of how he works the steering wheel, but because of all the things he does to make it so he doesn't work the steering wheel.
I was quite suprised there wasn't a reference to the "gumtape deathmatch" story from early in the show. The lessons involved are the same--Takumi noticed that he actually drove faster when he used less countersteer. He should have noticed that he drove fastest when he didn't steer at all.
Right, now somebody tell me how far my foot is down my throat.
IMHO, the perfect control through a corner in a RWD car is one where you do not steer at all. You brake, turn slightly to initiate rotation, and then throughout the turn your steering wheel is held dead straight ahead--slip angles, inertia, and throttle control do everything for you. I'm not a good racer--I've only managed this feat exactly once, and it was pure luck, but it was an amazing feeling and I remember it distinctly. (it was the second curve of the esses on BL, and I was driving the XRT)
For fans of Initial D, think of the character "God-Hand" from the last season. Though Initial D gets a lot of details about racing wrong (I can't overemphasize this, Initial D is not always accurate), this was one case where they were on to something. A comment was made about his driving technique being "between drifting and gripping"--he's not gripping, because he doesn't steer into the turn, but he's not drifting because he's not countersteering either. Frankly, the name "God-Hand" is misleading--he's not skilled because of how he works the steering wheel, but because of all the things he does to make it so he doesn't work the steering wheel.
I was quite suprised there wasn't a reference to the "gumtape deathmatch" story from early in the show. The lessons involved are the same--Takumi noticed that he actually drove faster when he used less countersteer. He should have noticed that he drove fastest when he didn't steer at all.
Right, now somebody tell me how far my foot is down my throat.
It's the I6 engine--IMHO, generally the best-sounding configuration.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XFZMNrGSMhk
Rallying is harder when you've given away your pacenotes... warning, contains bad language.
45 laps is one hell of a rallyx race. I consider my RB4 set to be reasonably kind to tires, and 10-12 laps is as far as I like to run them, 15 in a real push. At 45 laps, I think you're getting beyond what can be done with setups, and you'll just have to drive carefully--easy on the throttle, try to limit your powerslides, even on the dirt sections. Higher gear ratios may help.
Anyway... run high pressures and less camber (try to get even tire wear, rather than equalize pressures or temps). Use slightly more coast lock to avoid locking the tires on braking. Harder ARBs all around may help even out tire loads between left and right sides.
Anyway... run high pressures and less camber (try to get even tire wear, rather than equalize pressures or temps). Use slightly more coast lock to avoid locking the tires on braking. Harder ARBs all around may help even out tire loads between left and right sides.
I just feel like pointing out that in that case, your "normal" racer just means someone about to crash. Braking hard in that situation would either A: Give you a big dose of understeer, so you smash into the ARMCO anyway, or B: A big dose of lift-off oversteer, so you spin out and smash into the ARMCO backwards.
Any reasonably competent driver in that situation, drifter or not, would attempt to induce a bit of controlled oversteer, either power-on or lift-off depending on what the car setup was like. But then, any reasonably competent driver wouldn't be running molten tires.
Heh. Yeah, it's hideous and not very practical--but then, practicality isn't exactly what any of the other hypercars are for either. It does have one selling point for the road--I heard that in EPA tests it gets something like 30 miles to the gallon. The small engine and light weight I guess--at low speeds, it shouldn't actually need much fuel.
Still, I mostly like it because finally somebody has remembered that the #1 performance feature is light weight, and they've run with it as far as modern technology will take it. It's an Ariel Atom with a Formula body and engine. Given how fast the Atom already is, with 300 BHP and no body at all, this thing will own the track.
I mentioned the Veyron's low-downforce mode. It still handles better at high speed than the Mclaren (According to Clarkson, anyway).
The CCX, with spoiler, gained 3 seconds of time on a 1:20 lap. That's as much as the time difference between the stock CCX and the original Koenigsegg. The stock CCX was slower than the Porsche Carrera GT, despite a 200 HP and 400 lb. advantage. The loss of traction in the high speed turn was only doubtfully influenced by the mid-engined configuration--yes, it decreases moment of inertia, promoting spins, but the Stig was making a very gentle turn at the time and I don't think rotational inertia had anything to do with it.
Well, you can draw your own conclusions.
IMHO, the CCX's real top speed is the one with the wing, a claimed 230 MPH. Which is comparable to the Veyron's top speed in "handling mode" (and, incidentally, roughly as fast as the Mclaren F1 LM, which has a wing as well, though its the slowest of the three at a claimed 225). Except you can turn handling mode off, while the wing is permanent. And the Veyron has AWD.Anyway, I'm personally waiting for the Caparo T1
Last edited by 5th Earth, .
You're both right and wrong. it's true that the Veyron was built around strict artificial constraints--1000 BHP, 400 kmh (250 mph), and the body design was decided even before it was shown to the public--it was always going to look like that.
However, the comparison to the Mclaren is erroneous. The Mclaren with no rear wing had major rear downforce problems--the race versions all had large rear wings which cut back on top speed significantly. Granted, the Veyron does the same thing, with its multiple aero setups built into the car. But one should not forget that the Veyron is electronically LIMITED to 400 km/h, while the Mclaren was physically incapable of going faster than this. Additionally, the Veyron can hit that speed even with the drag of AWD, compared to the Mclaren's RWD. All reviews I've read say the Veyron handles significantly better than the McLaren, especially at high speed. The guy who designed the Mclaren has himself been quoted as impressed with the Veyron, despite original skepticism.
Look at the Koenigsegg CCX--it can also go around 400 km/h, and with less power than a Veyron, but only without a rear wing. The handling was so atrocious, it's the only car The Stig from Top Gear has ever crashed. Koenigsegg took it back, slapped a wing on, and it blitzed the track record--but the wing dropped top speed by about 75 Km/h. The McLaren and Koenigsegg both only make their top speeds by seriously sacrificing handling.
At any rate, I'm still looking forward to the Bristol. That slippery body will be nice, as will light weight--with the listed stats, I'll believe 270 mph, especially with only RWD. But I'm skeptical of what the handling will be like--front-engined, RWD, questionable downforce. I'm curious to see how it really turns out.
Well, if it's handling you're worried about, just drop it into a caterham or radical or something. Shouldn't be a difficult conversion--the engine isn't too big.
Exactly my choice too. That or Mike Smith's "Truggy" on the Baja 1000...but that's not a permanent course, so I guess it doesn't count.
Last edited by 5th Earth, .
Well, think about it. Say you've got a pile of money and want to buy a "fun" car, not something practical or for everyday use, just something to zip about in. $33k will get you a nice car with modest sporting capabilities.
Or, you can spend that $33k on this, and get dozens of cars, many of them with serious sporting capabilities. And you won't have to pay insurance.
Or, you can spend that $33k on this, and get dozens of cars, many of them with serious sporting capabilities. And you won't have to pay insurance.
My two small denominations of currency:
I'm not really a fast driver, so maybe this is poor advice. But if I had to single out one thing as being all-important in racing, it's the way you stop braking when entering a corner. It's that moment that controls everything else in the corner. IMHO, the perfect racing line follows naturally from the perfect brake release. When you start braking is trivial--late braking vs. (reasonably) early braking is a matter of milliseconds for lap times--but if you stop braking at the wrong time, or do it too suddenly or slowly, it screws up the entire corner, and no amount of throttle and steering control will help you.
I'm not really a fast driver, so maybe this is poor advice. But if I had to single out one thing as being all-important in racing, it's the way you stop braking when entering a corner. It's that moment that controls everything else in the corner. IMHO, the perfect racing line follows naturally from the perfect brake release. When you start braking is trivial--late braking vs. (reasonably) early braking is a matter of milliseconds for lap times--but if you stop braking at the wrong time, or do it too suddenly or slowly, it screws up the entire corner, and no amount of throttle and steering control will help you.
Well, technically, the current atom is the "atom 2", (the original had a rover engine, now its got a honda engine) but I know what you mean.
I think the curved beam is fine, and wasn't necessarily just for looks. First of all, the side beam has to be high and wide in the middle for side protection and space for passengers, but low and narrow in the front and back for the suspension mounting points--so a curved beam is a simple solution. An additional reason for a high middle is greater stiffness--by increasing the distance between the upper and lower beams of the truss on each side, the stiffness increases,
Secondly, the primary loading forces are all more or less in the plane of the curve. If the force was longitudinal, then a curved beam would be terrible because it's already on its way to buckling. In this configuration, where the main loads are pushing the two ends upwards against a central downward load, the curve acts like an arch. Arches are better at supporting this kind of load than a straight beam.
Finally, using the smooth curve minimizes the number of beams needed to make the frame. With straight tubes only, seperated pieces would have to be welded on to allow the chassis to narrow at the front and back, which means sharp angles with welded joints, which are weak points prone to flexing and breaking. With the curve, they can use a single, continuous tube almost the full length of the car.
Really, if you want to make it any lighter, I think a better way would be to make it single-seater. But then it would lose what little practicality it has--in other words, if they do make a single-seat version, they should keep making the two-seater too.
Well, to be fair, magnesium and Kevlar have their uses too.
Of course, if you really want to see what can be done with stripping down a car, just look at an Ariel Atom. 300HP, 500Kg. As long as it doesn't come to a top speed battle, it'll outrace cars costing literally 10x as much--and that's before you add the downforce package.
The Colin Mcrae rally games have done a good job with the windshield images--very subtle buildup of dust, and in the rain you get individual droplets streaking upwards from the airflow. There's one particular course I remember, a dark race in the rain on mud and gravel that would be tricky in good weather, but with the rain effects and everything I actually struggle just to see the apexes (and the large rocks lovingly planted right on top of them). CMR isn't exactly realistic physics, but the graphics are spot on.
But yes, it's mostly eye candy. I think it does have an effect, but it's no important at this stage of LFS.
But yes, it's mostly eye candy. I think it does have an effect, but it's no important at this stage of LFS.
That would actually make sense, if they were angled down instead of up. Arranged like that, as far as I can figure, they would promote instability instead of preventing it. As the car rolls, downforce will increase on the low side, causing more roll...
The vertical wings confuse me too. They might improve straight line aaerodynamics, but I can' help thinking they will have bad effects in the corners. Position on the front like that, under oversteer or understeer they will tend to push the nose in the wrong direction.
I don't like F1 anyway. Has as much to do with "real cars" as NASCAR does, these days--the technology is so hyper-specialized that develppments have more to do with circumventing rules than technical innovation.
Another thought on why tires have less load in the center than on the edges.
The angle where the sidewall meets the tread is semi-rigid--that is, the tire will deform in such a way as to maintain this angle. If the sidewalls are compressed and as a result bulge outwards, this will create a torque on the edges of the tread, causing the center to lift. See picture for crude rendering of this dynamic.
In all honesty this effect is probably miniscule in real life and not modeled at all in LFS, but it was a thought that occured to me, so I figured I would post it.
The angle where the sidewall meets the tread is semi-rigid--that is, the tire will deform in such a way as to maintain this angle. If the sidewalls are compressed and as a result bulge outwards, this will create a torque on the edges of the tread, causing the center to lift. See picture for crude rendering of this dynamic.
In all honesty this effect is probably miniscule in real life and not modeled at all in LFS, but it was a thought that occured to me, so I figured I would post it.
Just another little observation--for my rally sets, I use a full 80% power lock and very little coast lock--only 10-15%. This is basically what you want for drifting, if any drifters are reading this. High power lock means that, once the rear wheels break loose, holding the throttle down will keep them spinning (the opposite extreme, an open diff will always prevent at least one wheel from spinning). Low coast lock means that easing off the throttle will quickly stop the drift and get you back under control.
The disadvantage of course is that the broad range of locking makes the car sensitve to slight throttle changes. If you can't control the car upon releasing the throttle, increasing the coast lock can make it easier.
The disadvantage of course is that the broad range of locking makes the car sensitve to slight throttle changes. If you can't control the car upon releasing the throttle, increasing the coast lock can make it easier.
Why do they even bother with the gloves? It's obvious that knee and foot strikes are allowed, and there's no padding on those. And apparently no mouthgaurds either. I can appreciate the honesty of the loose rules, but those two aspects just confuse me.
Although I give the Group B cars a lot of respect, they actually do have a lot in common with "rice". They started out as small coupes and hatchbacks with engines in the 2.0L range, and had stuff slapped all over them to turn them into monstrous race cars (monstrous in performance and appearance). Lack of technology in certain areas, i.e. suspension and brakes, was desperately compensated for with enormous wings, which were a faster, cheaper and easier way of helping performance--the same rationale most "ricers" use when putting body kits and so forth on their cars, cheap and simple improvement to performance of an initially small and cheap car.
The difference, of course, is that the Group B engineers knew what they were doing, and all the hideous things they did to the cars actually worked, whereas few if any "ricers" have any technical knowledge and do as much harm as good most of the time. In addition are the usual "showoff" mods like loud BOVs that cheaply simulate characteristics of high-performance cars (Group B cars had loud BOVs too--but it wasn't deliberate, just a consequence of the enormous boost pressures).
Now, neon and stuff is just aesthetic, and not even "ricers" will claim it has any effect on performance. Heck, I think glowing lights are cool too, and if I was making a car just to be pretty I might consider it, although I'll pass on the vinyl decals. The problem most "ricers" have is mixing aesthetics with performance (and a large dose of poor taste) and ending up with, well, what this thread is about.
The difference, of course, is that the Group B engineers knew what they were doing, and all the hideous things they did to the cars actually worked, whereas few if any "ricers" have any technical knowledge and do as much harm as good most of the time. In addition are the usual "showoff" mods like loud BOVs that cheaply simulate characteristics of high-performance cars (Group B cars had loud BOVs too--but it wasn't deliberate, just a consequence of the enormous boost pressures).
Now, neon and stuff is just aesthetic, and not even "ricers" will claim it has any effect on performance. Heck, I think glowing lights are cool too, and if I was making a car just to be pretty I might consider it, although I'll pass on the vinyl decals. The problem most "ricers" have is mixing aesthetics with performance (and a large dose of poor taste) and ending up with, well, what this thread is about.
illepallJust giving you a setup is not going to put you within 1 second of the WR.
190 hp M3? I think you need a tune up... Last I checked, the current M3 was good for well over 300.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG