you mean like, police progress report threads?

Quote from tristancliffe :

I'd be interested to see a torque curve (or a power curve before you all start) of the engine using the different cam profiles and timings, because I expect the 'mid range torque boost' with the different timing won't be as great as some people think. The huge main reason of Variable Valve Timing (including or not variable lift) is emissions and economy. It's highly likely (but impossible to say without more data than the engine departments are going to divulge) that the racier cam profiles and timings are better throughout the rev range in terms of performance, but seriously lack in terms of economy and emissions, whereas the less racey profiles/lifts/timings sacrifice a bit of torque for cleaner and more complete burning.

As I say it's almost, if not totally impossible to say this with a great deal of accuracy without all the data, which we ain't likely to see. Ever.

Have you driven other cars with small capacity engines tuned to produce peak power at high rpm? They're not real fun to drive around town etc, pretty grumpy down at low rpm. Much as I think vtec is a bit wrong and silly, (much better, smoother, ways of producing higher peak power imho) it's signifigantly better than the same peak engine tune without it...
if you look at a vtec engines torque plot, it's a bunch of fairly flat steps, (the steps are one of the main reasons I don't like vtec) as opposed to a 'normal' high rpm tuned small capacity engine, which usually rises pretty steeply.

the dodgy behaviour with combinations of lateral and longitudinal load has been with us since the beginning, seems a bit hopeful to just assume all will be perfect in a few months time... though certainly, I'm hoping too

if you think oversteer is what defines 'behaving like a rwd' then you lack an understanding of vehicle dynamics in general

sorry, but the bit about fwd cars behaving like rwd is as much misguided rubbish as the first poster

if you're going to judge the capability of drivetrain layouts, you really need to use something other than parity modified racing

locked dif, lower damping on the rear suspension than the front, fair bit of toe in on the rear wheels, low pressure in rear tyres.

'saving' part worn tyres is career-mode ish, which we currently have none of. You don't have to save fuel, or body shells, or anything else...

The original suggestion sounds reasonable to me, as a suggestion for consideration... though I wouldn't really care if it got implemented or not. Doesn't seem the sort of thing that would be worried about in real life, but that may mean the current tyre wear physics are not representative?

Quote from Bob Smith :

That could well be what Scawen was talking about when he said "how throttle affects tyre grip" (or something like that). So fingers crossed.

has he said he's looking at that specific issue? Be great if so... the current linear correlation between corner grip and throttle input just seems so wrong...

I treat my monitor as my windscreen, though have the cam centered in car, as I don't have the same ability to compensate for view as in real life... none of the car visible, 120 fov (only possible since I picked up a 21" screen, looked too distorted previously) to emulate peripheral vision as well as possible.

over turning the steering wheel (provoking understeer) is a nice easy way I found to drive it. over turn, correct to the point where the car is nicely balanced, straigten up, accelerate away.

Quote from ajp71 :

You can't make a 4WD F1 car, or do much at all due to the restrictive rules. As for weight yes it is specified but racing cars are always built as light as possible and then ballasted up to acheive a low centre of gravity, you'll probably find that around 200kg of a 600kg F1 car is ballast.

Yes... that was my point

great stuff

f1 cars currently have a minimum weight specified, yes? so awd is unlikely to increase the weight at all, just means the weight balance is not as adjustable.

awd would wipe the floor if it was allowed, with no 'penalties', is the impression I got from reading a few bits and pieces. If it were a disadvantage, would there be a need to ban it?
awd is a little more advanced now than 30 (more?) years ago...

I don't believe it's the surge in momentum (acceleration) you feel, I think it's the surge in acceleration. (integral of acceleration, I think?)
The acceleration undergoes a sharp jump and then levels off, (which is in line with what you feel) while the momentum starts increasing more quickly, and continues in that way.

Hope I made sense. It's something I've thought about a bit, though don't have any fancy textbooks handy to back me up... but the human body appears to feel the change in acceleration, much more strongly than 'just' the acceleration, which can mean the game doesn't feel right, because you're not getting 'tricked' by the g forces.

all of that would be fine, if the dfp wheel was as suited to huge swinging arm steering wheel movements as a 'normal' steering wheel. I can go lock to lock on my rx7, and correct from this state, far easier than on my dfp... maybe my hands are too big or something, but I just get lost with where the wheel is at.

I bought a dfp for the better quality. I have the rotation set to 300, the wheel is just too small for proper swinging off it, 2.5 turns lock to lock around corners...

much as I think it's an unnecessary suggestion, all these replies of 'the physics change at the speed of sound' crack me up. Like allowing a car to continue on with normal physics would somehow be less realistic than a giant hand of god resetting your car. Never seen that one occur at the speed of sound either!

I'd suggest we need more realistic crashes before we worry about more realistic damage... clipping the pit bay exit at 5km/h in real life doesn't launch you skyward, end over end

a 100hp fwd go kart would be useless, a 400hp 4 tonne luxo barge with traction / stability control, would work acceptably.

says who? how heavy is the car? how hard does the power come on?

because people repeat bollocks they've heard on the internet, over and over?

the higher the power level, the less useful fwd is in comparison to rwd... but that's no reason to go throwing lines in the sand about willy nilly. Vehicle weight, tyre grip, power delivery, and intended usage are pretty much the defining factors.

where's the 'most definately not' option? I don't vote in biased polls

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

What the **** do you drive? ROFL

rx7 turbo illepall