I may as well chime in, everyone else is.
The problem with F1 is that it is a fundamentally unsafe racing format. Open wheels and cockpits cause accidents and injuries that simply don't happen in other forms of racing. What would be a minor nudge in a closed-wheel class can result in a wheel being ripped clean off, or worse, in an open-wheel class. And having your head exposed is obviously risky.
Is it worth the risk? You tell me.
The problem with F1 is that it is a fundamentally unsafe racing format. Open wheels and cockpits cause accidents and injuries that simply don't happen in other forms of racing. What would be a minor nudge in a closed-wheel class can result in a wheel being ripped clean off, or worse, in an open-wheel class. And having your head exposed is obviously risky.
Is it worth the risk? You tell me.
A common misconception--a turbosupercharger is just what we call a turbocharger today. See, the supercharger was invented first. When the turbocharger was invented, it was seen as just a new kind of supercharger, a turbine-driven supercharger as opposed to a belt-driven supercharger. This was shortened to turbo-supercharger, and eventually just to turbocharger.
Some of the turbosupercharged WWII fighter engines did in fact use a supercharger as well as an exhaust-driven turbocharger. Many of the supercharged aircraft engines had the supercharger built into the engine block and attached directly to the crankshaft, so instead of redesigning the engine to remove the supercharger, they just slapped a turbo on the end of it and let both run all the time.
It's hard to find actual numbers on the pressures they used, but at least one supercharged-only aircraft engine I've found data for ran at 35 PSI boost with water-methanol injection for anti-detonation. (Allison V1710 engine, total 2,250 HP war emergency power, claimed modern race-modified up to 4,000 HP). I've seen estimates of engines of this power level using something like 400 HP just to drive the supercharger.
Actually it makes MORE sense to me than turbocharged 4-bangers. The classic high-performance 4 cylinder engine is known for terrible low-speed torque and a very narrow powerband. Supercharger=more low end torque and wider powerband. To me, it's the logical choice--no more worrying about falling off boost and accelerating like a slug. Sure, peak power would be lower than a turbo, but a broad powerband would be great for corner exits--with AWD, the FXR is already best equipped for early-acceleration driving styles. Imagine the FXR with the FZR's engine--that's what you'd get.
Of course, what would be really great is a twincharger system so at high speed the supercharger drops out and an enormous turbo takes over. Best of both worlds, Lancia's later Group B rally cars used this with great success. But they're the only people in racing history to pull it off--the only other twincharger I've heard of actually being used in a car was an aftermarket modification for the early Toyota MR2, and it was supposed to be almost impossible to tune.
Sometimes in race footage you can actually see the spray of sawdust when the plank bottoms out. Of course, the plank being oriented along the axis of the vehicle, designers still allow the car to theoretically drop low enough to grind it off because in turns, lateral roll can lower the outside edge of the car below 10mm without the plank in the middle dragging.
http://video.google.com/videop ... 1&q=crash&pl=true
Really just a video of some open-wheels zooming around, but there's a turn at the very beginning that looks EXACTLY like part of blackwood...
Really just a video of some open-wheels zooming around, but there's a turn at the very beginning that looks EXACTLY like part of blackwood...
Re: Veyron is being built and sold, $1.3 million US. (and a loss leader at that, estimated cost including development is $5 million US) IIRC they're all already accounted for. Top speed is limited electronically to 400 km/h, which is roughly 250 mi/h, but you have to put the car into a special low-drag mode to do it (that said, the car is probably capable of faster in this mode). In the normal "handling" setup, top speed is drag limited to a reasonable bit over 200.
Ariel Atom, with the "good" engine, is about 600 BHP/tonne. I don't think anybody has done numerical testing on its roadholding, but with aggressive aero parts and upgraded tires I'd expect pushing 2 G. But top speed is probably only in the 250 km/h area, if that, due to drag.
This new car... I'm willing to believe the possibility of 1000 bhp/tonne, but I'd want proof too. 500 kilos is a damn light car. 3 G roadholding will have to be at high speed for the downforce--it's totally possible but sounds more impressive than it probably is. 3 G braking, ditto. The Veyron can probably do that too, albeit due to airbraking and a large body making for high drag at high speed, which together can probably exert a G or so by themselves. Acceleration... It's a stretch but I'll believe it. Group B cars could pull this off, granted with 4WD, but they weighed more and had ginormous turbos to spool up.
I think it's rather ugly too.
I'm just glad to see a company that, like Ariel, hasn't forgotten the importance of light weight in a performance car. All the modern ones, even ferraris and the like, have been positively obese. To hell with active suspension and leather trim weighing things down, it's about time somebody decided to show what current technology can really do. Lets just hope they don't use a cack gearbox like the original F1.
Ariel Atom, with the "good" engine, is about 600 BHP/tonne. I don't think anybody has done numerical testing on its roadholding, but with aggressive aero parts and upgraded tires I'd expect pushing 2 G. But top speed is probably only in the 250 km/h area, if that, due to drag.
This new car... I'm willing to believe the possibility of 1000 bhp/tonne, but I'd want proof too. 500 kilos is a damn light car. 3 G roadholding will have to be at high speed for the downforce--it's totally possible but sounds more impressive than it probably is. 3 G braking, ditto. The Veyron can probably do that too, albeit due to airbraking and a large body making for high drag at high speed, which together can probably exert a G or so by themselves. Acceleration... It's a stretch but I'll believe it. Group B cars could pull this off, granted with 4WD, but they weighed more and had ginormous turbos to spool up.
I think it's rather ugly too.
I'm just glad to see a company that, like Ariel, hasn't forgotten the importance of light weight in a performance car. All the modern ones, even ferraris and the like, have been positively obese. To hell with active suspension and leather trim weighing things down, it's about time somebody decided to show what current technology can really do. Lets just hope they don't use a cack gearbox like the original F1.
Last edited by 5th Earth, .
I wonder why he started so far back... he's obviously way faster than most of the other cars, both in terms of skill and in vehicle.
That said, he was a really aggressive passer... I mean, he had to be sometimes to fight through that pack, but there were a few times where he forced the inside line even when he was barely beside the other cars. If I drove like that in LFS I'd be clipping rear quarterpanels all over the track and getting banned from the server. I guess it just takes faith that the other drivers are skillful enough to notice you in their blind spot. Or not caring if you hit them, since it'll be worse for them than you at that angle.
illepall
Off topic, why is it that high-performance gearboxes are so often "backwards" of what I expect? For a sequential, I'd instinctively push forwards to upshift and backwards to downshift, not the other way around. And I so often hear about paddle-shifters where left is up, and right is down... backwards of my instincts again.
That said, he was a really aggressive passer... I mean, he had to be sometimes to fight through that pack, but there were a few times where he forced the inside line even when he was barely beside the other cars. If I drove like that in LFS I'd be clipping rear quarterpanels all over the track and getting banned from the server. I guess it just takes faith that the other drivers are skillful enough to notice you in their blind spot. Or not caring if you hit them, since it'll be worse for them than you at that angle.
illepallOff topic, why is it that high-performance gearboxes are so often "backwards" of what I expect? For a sequential, I'd instinctively push forwards to upshift and backwards to downshift, not the other way around. And I so often hear about paddle-shifters where left is up, and right is down... backwards of my instincts again.
I'm rather fond of Bankgothic and Microsoft Fixedsys.
Pit control system
Okay, lots of people have posted threads asking to have more control over the car in the pits, but no one has suggested a good fast way to do this. After some thought, I've come up with the following system of keys to make it easy, reasonably intuitive, and fast to adjust your car during a race.
*Adjust brake balance forward/back: Numpad 8 and 2.
*Adjust front ARB softer/harder: numpad 7 and 9.
*Adjust rear ARB softer/harder: numpad 1 and 3.
If you look at your numpad, I'm sure these will make obvious sense.
Now for tires. These are a bit awkward, but the best I could think of given all the possible ways you'd probably want to change your tires:
*Cycle: force change both left tires, force left front only, force left rear only, automatic change (i.e. on 50% wear), change neither left tire: Numpad 4
*Same options, for right tires: numpad 6
*Cycle: Force change all tires, automatic change all tires, change none: numpad 5
For tire pressure:
*Cycle: select FL tire/FR tire/RR tire/RL tire: \
*Decrease/increase pressure of selected tire: [ and ]
For fuel, we have the following options:
*Increase/decrease fuel load: numpad + and -
*Cycle: Refuel up to selected fuel load/add selected fuel load to current fuel/don't refuel: numpad *
And for wings, as follows:
*Decrease/increase front wing angle: numpad = and /
*Decrease/increase rear wing angle: numpad 0 and .
Anyway, this should give you instant access to all the major adjustments without navigating any menus, and without using any keys LFS already uses (AFAIK). If you want to tweak anything else on the fly, just do it through the normal F12 menu. I can't think of any reason why you'd touch any of the other settings in a race anyway.
*Adjust brake balance forward/back: Numpad 8 and 2.
*Adjust front ARB softer/harder: numpad 7 and 9.
*Adjust rear ARB softer/harder: numpad 1 and 3.
If you look at your numpad, I'm sure these will make obvious sense.
Now for tires. These are a bit awkward, but the best I could think of given all the possible ways you'd probably want to change your tires:
*Cycle: force change both left tires, force left front only, force left rear only, automatic change (i.e. on 50% wear), change neither left tire: Numpad 4
*Same options, for right tires: numpad 6
*Cycle: Force change all tires, automatic change all tires, change none: numpad 5
For tire pressure:
*Cycle: select FL tire/FR tire/RR tire/RL tire: \
*Decrease/increase pressure of selected tire: [ and ]
For fuel, we have the following options:
*Increase/decrease fuel load: numpad + and -
*Cycle: Refuel up to selected fuel load/add selected fuel load to current fuel/don't refuel: numpad *
And for wings, as follows:
*Decrease/increase front wing angle: numpad = and /
*Decrease/increase rear wing angle: numpad 0 and .
Anyway, this should give you instant access to all the major adjustments without navigating any menus, and without using any keys LFS already uses (AFAIK). If you want to tweak anything else on the fly, just do it through the normal F12 menu. I can't think of any reason why you'd touch any of the other settings in a race anyway.
The tire isn't hanging in the air until the negative load is notably less than zero. The suspension can be exerting negative load while the tire is still in contact with the road, because the weight of the wheel itself pulls it downwards. Until the upward (negative) load from the suspension is great enough to overcome the weight of the wheel itself, the tire will stay touching the ground.
Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by negative load...
On the contrary, it's the slow laps that scare me. If I set a PB it's because everything is happening exactly the way I want it to.
An asymmetrical setup is usually a very good thing for the cars with off-center seating (most of them). Since there's more weight on one side than the other, if the camber is set the same on both sides, the car will actually ride asymmetrically anway. So, first and foremost, I use asymmetrical setups to compensate for this factor.
After that, camber is largely a matter of tire wear and temperature more than anything else. The best way to tune it, though the most tedious, is to just drive a large number of laps on the track, then check the temps and wear (F9) and adjust accordingly. If you're going for a short but fast time, aim more for even temps, and for endurance, even wear.
A faster but less track specific method is to go out on the skid pad and drive in a circle for a few minutes--but only tune your outside tires on a given run, the inside will always wear improperly if you only turn one way (oval excepted). To tune the right tires, turn left, and to tune the left tires, turn right. Or, make/download a figure-8 autocross track and use that.
It depends how open you diff is. You can handle any amount of wheelspin in a FWD easily, but with an open diff it may cost you some speed. Either way, I've found that flooring it on the grid doesn't seem to damage any of the cars
On another note, why doesn't anyone ever consider making their first and second gears longer to ease starting in the F08? If you can spin the wheels easily, then the gear is shorter than it needs to be, it's that simple. At the very least, you should be able to floor it from idle in first gear and not spin out.
I don't drive the F08, but in the FOX, my first gear is 1.96*4.00. Rev to just 2-3000 or so, floor it when the light turns green, and control is a non-issue, a bit of protest and then the tires hookup nicely. Plus, since 1st is so high, my other gears are closer together.
I don't think the high-tarmac rallyx courses are necessarily a bad thing. It would be an interesting compromise to see whether it's worth it to brave the dirt sections with road tires, or whether hybrids are still necessary.
Still, as mentioned #3 looks best.
Still, as mentioned #3 looks best.
Unless it has an anti turbo lag system. Which none of the cars do.
I would particularly like to direct people to photo a6 in Hyperactive's post. Most people don't really understand Chicago--it goes around the left side of the tire wall and has short left turns on the entrance and exit. I've got a better picture of it here--shows the Gambon side of the track as well, but no Hammerhead (fortunately Hyperactive has another pic that shows Hammerhead quite clearly)
Yah, he's right, this is the problem I ran into back when I was making my suspension spreadsheet. I initially thought that downforce would have an effect on spring frequencies, but eventually we determined downforce had no effect at all.
But then that begs the question, why do the graphs have multiple peaks, above and below the natural frequency?
Further fuel on the fire--don't forget that the tires, being flexible, also have a frequency, usually much higher than the suspension itself (anywhere from 5-13 Hz, given a quick look at Bob's GRC). With critical damping (generally not actually used), the flex of the tires over bumps will be pretty significant.
Last edited by 5th Earth, .
Actually somebody already guessed it correctly, and no it's not a bobsleigh track. In fact, it's not even snow.
Clarkson once insinuated that Michael Schumacher was the Stig, but he was undoubtedly joking.
I've rally'd the FO8 as well as the GTRs (on conventional slicks!) and although it's "silly" it can be fun. The FO8 especially, you slooooowly drift around the dirt sections, barely feathering the throttle in 3rd or 4th gear, then get onto the tarmac and make a wild dash until you hit dirt again, then it's back to ultra-conservative driving.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG