Not this year. Still lacking like minded people to go with. And funds. And time. Maybe next year, really want to go again. I did at least see the Silverstone leg of the LMS last year, might do that again.

Quote from shiny_red_cobra :

I'm just trying to let you know that this thread will not accomplish anything.

I don't see what there is to talk about at all? We know that work, as ever, continues on LFS. Every version is better than the last. At some point, it will get better again. All there is to do, is enjoy racing in LFS, or one of a million other things in life.

Quote from adamshl :

In Online racers tab we can see list of all players online: Demo, S1 and S2 license (including players who have hidden profile and/or who are connected to hidden host).

Are you sure about that bit in bold?

You can change gear when you want, you know.

Quote from P5YcHoM4N :

Your car has a good safety rating and airbags. You'll be fine.

See, you're assuming there will be an impact. I fear I'd fall forever.

Quote from P5YcHoM4N :

And we bitch about pot holes in the UK.

If I drove over that one, I don't think I'd be able come here and post about it.

Anyone good enough to buy a mod an M3 or an M5 saloon? It would be VERY nice

Never. It's being intentionally left unfixed so that people keep creating useful threads like this.

Fuel consumption would be the same irrelevant of gear. If, of course, you weren't hitting the limiter. Since you are, you'll be hitting the limiter more often in 1st gear, so end up burning less. But all the time you are burning, the fuel consumption rates will match.

At least when using a simplistic model.

Edit: Yeah, what JeffR said.

Tomba(FIN) - don't be surprised when people take offence when you leave comments like that. DWB said much the same thing only it came across in a nice way. The image quality is clearly poor but I think the shots are still nice. The guy is trying so there's no need to say crap 8 times, thanks.

No spam plz, kthnxbai

I'd say B. Least exciting but 4 laps in a Cayman will be over before you can fart. I'd rather get to grips with one car, in the short amount of time available. Plus slower cars mean more track time!

If it's brand new you should have some kind of warranty with it. Speak to the shop you bought it from, they should service the problem free of charge.

I see your salted and raise you five sachets of ketchup from Wetherspoons.

Quote from piggy501 :

And who says it has to be an arse?

Well it's not going to be my manhood, photocopiers only go up to A3...

People are often frightened of change. Although I'm not entirely convinced that changing the party in control will really make all that much difference.

I only know of SlickMod but it hasn't been updated since 0.5V.

Nice idea! Not sure how useful it really is (or the "I'm playing now" status in the first place) but everyone is different people can find a use for anything if someone is willing to make it.

Quote from shiny_red_cobra :

Also, you can try the Omega drivers, in some cases those are known to work better than the official ATI drivers.

I've never managed to get the ATI drivers to work properly with my X1800XT + X700 combo (always suffer from stability issues). Omega drivers don't seem to crash, so they are the only usable option for me. A shame they aren't updated anymore.

Sorry, are you talking about the same numbers? Using the data you provided and the equation Juls provided I'd agree that the load sensitivity was severely understated in GTR2 (although 20x more would be too much).

See attached table...

Edit: ah, Juls has posted again. Now I'm confused. Is there more to the load sensitivity in the ISI engine that just a linear drop?

Last edited by Bob Smith, Thu 29 Apr 2010, 14:28. Reason : damn Juls

Quote from Shotglass :

isnt that the whole point? if you put the wheels loosely on the axle or axles id expect the whole thing to just roll straight ahead

Having tested this morning, this was more important that I at first though. More importantly though, this did manage to get me thinking and I've solved my problem now, and I didn't even need to know the radius in the end.

Ah but the difference in radii causes the wheels to camber, and you get camber thrust, and they won't cancel out.

Quote from Shotglass :

just find the crossing point of the lines through the contact patch and through the axle...

Aha, yes, that makes sense, easier than I first thought when you think about it that way. I should be able to work that out in the morning and hopefully looking at my maths will make three jump's post a little more clearer. Thanks.

Quote from Shotglass :

second one is incredibly complicated as you have to deal with slip ratios slip angles and all that nonsense

Bah. Particularly when the wheels may not be free to rotate at different speeds. Maybe I can bodge something up for a reasonable estimation of the bonus question.

Quote from speedway :

Lets say the radius for one axle was 20m, would you still be able to keep that radius if two axles were 50m apart?

Of course not. Clearly increasing wheelbase will increase the radius the vehicle will try and turn in.

So I have a free axle (i.e. just an axle, no car) with two wheels (one at either end), but the wheels are not the same radius.

If I were to push this axle along the ground, it would travel in a circle. Does anyone know how I might determine the radius of this circle?

For bonus points, if there are now two such axles connected at a fixed distance ahead of one another (hmm, like a car!), how would this effect the radius?

I'm assuming it's not you holding the cat? Those hands look way older than 17.