PERFORMANCE DIESEL CAR, hmmm....
Let's see now... AUDI R10, check! VW toureg 2.5L turbodiesel dakar rally racer, check! 1.9 turbodiesel VW that goes 6000rpm, check! VW toureg V10 diesel that goes to 60mph in under around 8 seconds, check!, BMW 120ci (I think that's the right number, though you can easily check that out), check!.......
Note some here are RACE cars.
BTW, if car tech doesn't change, what else? Race drivers aren't going to change much, unless we're heading into mutant/cybernetic supermen??? No tech improvemnet, no change. Simple logic/ common sense. Of course, this won't compute for guys who enjoy the same old outdated boring and pointless/obsolete tech over and over and over...
And tristan should really visit a psychoanalyst/psychiatrist, this guy has a serious attitude problem. Seemed pretty ok for quite a while, and now he's back to his same old silly patterns.
And of course, major ice ages do come, but not before a major warming period, if the earth sticks to its usual pattern. Temperature rise can't simply be considered bad, as it negatively affects some but positively affects other areas. As on sun's influence, it's a multitude of factors, from sunspots to solar flare emmisions to proximity (thanks to the earth's nototriously wobbly orbit over geological history). And yes, I read the journals, not the tabloids.
Speaking of geology, do you know that the earth's magnetic field is also notoriously unstable? Check some records on magnetic north and you'll discover that its quie different from today's. In fact, there were times when north was south and vice-versa! BUT the worse times were when the poles are swapping aka transients). Imagine what could go wrong in this modern era when grow more hopelessly dependant on GPS, etc.
Let's see now... AUDI R10, check! VW toureg 2.5L turbodiesel dakar rally racer, check! 1.9 turbodiesel VW that goes 6000rpm, check! VW toureg V10 diesel that goes to 60mph in under around 8 seconds, check!, BMW 120ci (I think that's the right number, though you can easily check that out), check!.......
Note some here are RACE cars.
BTW, if car tech doesn't change, what else? Race drivers aren't going to change much, unless we're heading into mutant/cybernetic supermen??? No tech improvemnet, no change. Simple logic/ common sense. Of course, this won't compute for guys who enjoy the same old outdated boring and pointless/obsolete tech over and over and over...
And tristan should really visit a psychoanalyst/psychiatrist, this guy has a serious attitude problem. Seemed pretty ok for quite a while, and now he's back to his same old silly patterns.
And of course, major ice ages do come, but not before a major warming period, if the earth sticks to its usual pattern. Temperature rise can't simply be considered bad, as it negatively affects some but positively affects other areas. As on sun's influence, it's a multitude of factors, from sunspots to solar flare emmisions to proximity (thanks to the earth's nototriously wobbly orbit over geological history). And yes, I read the journals, not the tabloids.
Speaking of geology, do you know that the earth's magnetic field is also notoriously unstable? Check some records on magnetic north and you'll discover that its quie different from today's. In fact, there were times when north was south and vice-versa! BUT the worse times were when the poles are swapping aka transients). Imagine what could go wrong in this modern era when grow more hopelessly dependant on GPS, etc.
Same here, but done with KB stabilized. All overtaking lessons finished with a pro score.
Enough said. :sleep1:
That is simply a vast oversimplification and not strictly true, for reasons I'll rather not explain since it won't be to comprehensible to your average layman.
Remember when renault was forced to abandon its 6 speed gearbox for a 7 speed one due to the silly ban on variable intake lengths? It's strong torque bands that win races (if the car is properly optimised for it of course). Remember those days when the renault had such a significant advantage in sarting and corner exit performance?
As on global warming, last time I checked, this relatively stable climate we're now in is the real freak of nature, not the other way round. Last time I checked, major celestial bodies such as the sun (especilaly) contribute way more to global climate than any efforts of puny little humans. Depletion of the ozone layer is as far as we could possibly do for now.
The point is, based on the latest ice core research, the earth's climate has usually been more like a drunk than a sober man, always wiggling up and down when it comes to the temperature. If you check historical accounts, you'll discover that climate as little as 1000 years ago was way different from today. So the greenies want us to belive that the chinese have somehow manipulated the weather with "excessive firecracker use" 1000 years ago?
The only thing of scientific certainty is that average temperature of the earth's atmosphere will get higher. Anything else is in a purely scientific sense uncertain.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
This isn't exactly relevant to this topic, but it's of a very similiar context to something I've witnessed recently. Here in Melbourne Australia, there was some parliamentary meeting on the issue of stem cell research. The porfessors, scientists, researchers, etc had to attend the meeting and try to educate a bunch of ignorant, snobbish, overprivaledged and aristocratic old farts on stem cells before they could even say a word directly relevant to the topic.
The future of science and technology (possibly the future of human health), to be argued and decided by a bunch of muppets who don't even have a clue what an embryo is! No wonder the world is in a hopeless mess.
End of the day, it's the structural integrity of the block that ultimately limits the power of an engine.
BTW, those 1200hp 1.5L turbo engines used massive absolute boost (as high as 5 bar!) and were V-6, built from exotic materials (not the conventional aluminium alloy or iron blocks used in WRC cars).
Last edited by Jamexing, .
Very true. No one in their right mind would ever setup cars the way they're set in those dreadful "hardtrack" setups in real life. Last time I tried the hard track setup of the XR GTT it understeered like a pig on entry and doesn't lend well to powering out of corners too well, no matter how skilled you are, since the silly thing would simply cook the inner rear tires. This compared to my own personal setups, though frankly isn't too fair a comparison.
If they were setups OEMs would realistically use for a road car that would still show the basic nature of each drivetrain well, then great. Same for the race only cars, except the OEM part.
I'm not saying we should just introduce 4WD into F-1 just like that. It is only one suggestion for allowing one technology to develop while one gets banned. And frankly, to say power based TC is irrelevant to safety is honestly dead wrong. Power based TC's use as a performance optimizer or safety device is all callibration dependant. That's why Ferrari's manettino wheels come with snow, normal, sport and race settings.
It's not the fact that they're banning TC that riles me up. It's the propensity to ban all the road car relevant and beneficial technologies (e.g. variable intakes that could be set to both optimize power, torque and chemical energy to mechanical energy conversion efficiency) that really pisses me off. I'm fine with no ABS and TC . But to get the most out of a cars traction circle via more ideally behaving diffs is also banned (E-diff). This is just pure ludistic insanity. E-diff is also like power based TC, which can be opimized or consistant performance or safety. It's all application and callibration dependant.
The fact that they're going to allow hybrid brake regenration to create this "push button to pass" crap is really the last straw as far as I'm concerned. Never mind how production of prius batteries kill off ENTIRE echosystems around nickel production plant. never mind this new hybrid wave of environmental destruction. If we REALLy wanted clean power, we should be trying real hard to develop and perfect nuclear fusion, but do the greenies and geneal puiblic care? No.
Welcome to the new age of F-1 where like those arcade Daytona games you can just push a turbo button and WOOHOOOO I passed them! Ah crap, here comes that corner...
And no, no cost cutting excuses. Top motorsport means top dollar and the pinnacle of everything (driving AND engineering).
Last edited by Jamexing, .
F-1's TC is WAY superior to road car brake based TC. If only any of you here have any idea how brake systems are overtaxed, overheated and destroyed in road cars. Brake based stability control is an excellent safety idea, but brake based TC (as in brake-based control of power output of the engine)? Normal road cars are absolutely hopeless in that respect to actually controlling traction. Thank god Ferrari has perfected its E-diff and F-1 style power control TC for both race and road use for its roadable cars.
Oh, I know, let's ban brakes and allow more "skill" to shine! Oh hail to Formula irrelevant! Long live NASCAR.
Let's get one thing absolutely straight. F-1 is supposed to be the ABSOLUTE PINNACLE OF TARMAC CIRCUIT MOTORSPORT. How can you be the pinnacle of mototrsport without being the pinnacle of technology? That simply defies all logic. Not to mention how many engineering jobs are needlessly sacrificed to fatten the accounts of already financially obese jerks who run this circus. Death to the middle class (engineers and technicians that WORK for a living)! Oh hail to the financial monarchies! MUHAHAHAHA!!!!!
As if there aren't enough crazy, ignorant and passionless bafoons that want to BAN ALL MOTORSPORT. I get this "why don't we ban motorsports" crap all too often these days. Motorsport is supposed to be the ULTIMATE prooving ground for new technology. If all road car relevant technology is no longer used and perfected in motorsports, it just gives those idiots another excuse to ban motorsports.
The irony of all this is that NASCAR is going towards the F-1 spirit of things. I'm quite well aware of important trends in major mototsports and currently, NASCAR is taking more of an engineering instead of their traditional mechanical approach to problem solving. Massive increases to investments in wind tunnel and CFD testing attest to this.
If TC was banned BUT new, superior tech with much more potential such as 4WD was allowed to develop, then great, that allows both driver skill and technology to shine. Or we could simply reallow active suspension and active aero while maintaining current power levels. All these things are very road car relevant. And despite what some ignorant goons here will say, 4WD is NOT a driver aid. It simply makes better use of the available power by sharing the work among all contact patches instead of seriously overworking 2 overcooked wheels. And no, active diffs DO NOT magically make your car uncrashable. The simply maximise use of available traction and grip. If you step outside the tractiobn circle, you loose it just the same. If any of you here have real experience driving real high-powered 4WD monsters setup for NEUTRAL overall balance and no electronic stabilty and traction aids. Overcooking them just a little means 4-wheel drift (radially) that if judged wrong, will quickly land you into a pole or down a cliff. And active suspension doesn't take driver skill away. It simply allows the car to stay level for optimized aero. It does NOT magically increase the cars potential. And all this is very relevant to improing road car suspension too.
Of course, spec racing has its place, but with F-1, there's no excuse for standardized anything.
I know I'll get a lot of hateful responses for this post and frankly, I don't care as I've seen more wronger than wrong statements and insults than most of you can ever get. Celebrate the death of technology in the supposed pinnacle of motorsport as long as you can for soon over 90% of the public will deem motorsports to be as socially acceptable as smoking.
Oh, I know, let's ban brakes and allow more "skill" to shine! Oh hail to Formula irrelevant! Long live NASCAR.
Let's get one thing absolutely straight. F-1 is supposed to be the ABSOLUTE PINNACLE OF TARMAC CIRCUIT MOTORSPORT. How can you be the pinnacle of mototrsport without being the pinnacle of technology? That simply defies all logic. Not to mention how many engineering jobs are needlessly sacrificed to fatten the accounts of already financially obese jerks who run this circus. Death to the middle class (engineers and technicians that WORK for a living)! Oh hail to the financial monarchies! MUHAHAHAHA!!!!!
As if there aren't enough crazy, ignorant and passionless bafoons that want to BAN ALL MOTORSPORT. I get this "why don't we ban motorsports" crap all too often these days. Motorsport is supposed to be the ULTIMATE prooving ground for new technology. If all road car relevant technology is no longer used and perfected in motorsports, it just gives those idiots another excuse to ban motorsports.
The irony of all this is that NASCAR is going towards the F-1 spirit of things. I'm quite well aware of important trends in major mototsports and currently, NASCAR is taking more of an engineering instead of their traditional mechanical approach to problem solving. Massive increases to investments in wind tunnel and CFD testing attest to this.
If TC was banned BUT new, superior tech with much more potential such as 4WD was allowed to develop, then great, that allows both driver skill and technology to shine. Or we could simply reallow active suspension and active aero while maintaining current power levels. All these things are very road car relevant. And despite what some ignorant goons here will say, 4WD is NOT a driver aid. It simply makes better use of the available power by sharing the work among all contact patches instead of seriously overworking 2 overcooked wheels. And no, active diffs DO NOT magically make your car uncrashable. The simply maximise use of available traction and grip. If you step outside the tractiobn circle, you loose it just the same. If any of you here have real experience driving real high-powered 4WD monsters setup for NEUTRAL overall balance and no electronic stabilty and traction aids. Overcooking them just a little means 4-wheel drift (radially) that if judged wrong, will quickly land you into a pole or down a cliff. And active suspension doesn't take driver skill away. It simply allows the car to stay level for optimized aero. It does NOT magically increase the cars potential. And all this is very relevant to improing road car suspension too.
Of course, spec racing has its place, but with F-1, there's no excuse for standardized anything.
I know I'll get a lot of hateful responses for this post and frankly, I don't care as I've seen more wronger than wrong statements and insults than most of you can ever get. Celebrate the death of technology in the supposed pinnacle of motorsport as long as you can for soon over 90% of the public will deem motorsports to be as socially acceptable as smoking.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
As I've mentioned, the "low fuel" levels are VERY car specific. In this case , the car has a max level of 92 liters and a kerb weight of around 2 metric tons. BTW, 30mpg is pretty common among small and effiecient city cars. Fuel consumption is anywhere from 20mpg in heavy urban traffic to 26mpg on highway in the 2.5L diesel/turbodiesel Pajero's case. Note these are real life figures based on real life driving.
In this case, Mitsubishi erred on the safe side for obvius reasons. Getting stuck in a 2 tonne 4WD in the middle of an off-road adventure isn't fun.
Hmm, that's explains a lot (the "very limited experience" part)...
The type of pump you're talking about is known as a rotary fuel pump, whereby the medium pumped is also the lubricant. Wouldn't necessarily kill it on the spot if your fuel's gone, though it isn't exactly a great idea.
And honestly, if you DO somehow manage to run our diesel absolutely dry (not so likely unless you practically ask for it aka ignore the low fuel warning), you could always revive it with a fresh new tank of fuel and some elbow grease. This is rather engine and car specific, but you could just open the hood, find the fuel filter, loosien the nut that 's underneath it that connedct to a fuel hose and manually pump the air out with a hand pump on top of the filter. Continue until the stuff you pump out is just diesel (i.e. NO air bubbles). Lock it all back up properly and try to start your engine. If the whole procedure was done correctly and the pump's still good (most likely), you should be able to drive on as if nothing happened.
I assume you know this better than me but then again, I could be wrong.
Anyway, fuel warning lights are very car specific. For instance, in a 1992-1999 Pajero, the low fuel warning shows up if the fuel level drops to about 15 liters. That's enough warning to drive you more than 100 kilometers of warning.
Fact is, the OBC doesn't HAVE to be too terribly accurate because honestly it is impossible, given such huge variations in driving style, terrain and traffic. And manufacturers are usually wise enough to err on the safe (aka conservative) side. Better safe then stuck in in the middle of the nowhere.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
Glad someone has FINALLY figured this out (besides me). Who in their right mind would realistically drive a car in an all out race with absolutely NO preparation? Last time I checked, I could easliy obtain 2-way adjustable dampers from Koni at 300+AUD each.
One problem though...
Last time I checked, LFS does NOT simulate ground effects. So important variables such as ground clearance and rake angle could make or break the aero cars.
Last time I checked, tire warmers are actually used to warm tires up to or close to race temperatures. To not allow cars to start with nice and warm tires is in fact counterproductive to good, exciting racing.
Why? Because in races like NASCAR where tire warmers are banned, drivers with fresh tires are FORCED to resort to employ block and chop tactics to maintain position to maintain position after a tire change until the tires warm up. This potentially very dangerous and makes for a lousy show. Would you rather watch a silly blocking parade over a full on race for position?
Since LFS is a RACING simulator, cars should start each race race ready.
Why? Because in races like NASCAR where tire warmers are banned, drivers with fresh tires are FORCED to resort to employ block and chop tactics to maintain position to maintain position after a tire change until the tires warm up. This potentially very dangerous and makes for a lousy show. Would you rather watch a silly blocking parade over a full on race for position?
Since LFS is a RACING simulator, cars should start each race race ready.
What's wrong with the units in LFS? They are the ideal units for car setups. Since most LFS units are SI units (KiloNewtons, meters, etc), what's wrong?
If there's one more thing that LFS lacks but should have (besides what's already mentioned), it's the use of progressive springs. Settings should include initial(soft) rate and the final (stiff) rate that activates when the spring in series gets bound. And do allow specification of rate changeover point (e.g. rear springs on a powerful RWD car gets stiff after 10mms of initial travel).
Why progressives? It's use is getting more popular by the day, especially those who need better comfort AND handling. From a racing context, extra "comfort" actually translates to extra grip, since it allows the tire loads to fluctuate less over time (keeping tires in contact of the gorund helps too). In fact, the 4WD aftermarket has been generating suspension packages with progressive springs that more comfortable than OEM while still increasing on and off road handling and stability (this of course excludes those stupidly excessive lift kits).
Wish this was already impemented from S1. +infinity
In case you are wondering, I'm already quite famililiar with genetics and the behavior of recessive and domninat genes. The wiki articles are good, but they're just stufff I already know. And yes, what you say about the interactions of dominant and recessive genes is a well known and understood truth.
What I was tyring to say was what if both unrelated parents had the defective and recessive gene? This does happen in real life, unfortunately. So do we have any right to ban them from producing children on genetic grounds? That was the real problem.
On the topic of incest, I do not personally agree with it since it is a relatively risky genetic gamble, especially of your family has some defective gene somewhere in your family tree. However, the fact is, it is not that being closely related would magically guarantee genetic inferiority. It is just that there is a higher risk that a faulty and/or recessive gene that would cause problems has a higher chance of expression.
In fact, it is no different for marrying someone with a genetic abnormallity. For instance, you may have sickle cell anemia. Then your spouse (NO family relations whatsoever) happens to be a sickle cell anemia carrier, but doesn't suffer from the condition due to her normal 2nd copy of the X chromosome. Your children would have a 50% chance of suffering from the condition. So should we BAN the marriage and the right to generate offspring on genetic grounds?
All this raises serious social issues. So, do we HAVE to genetically screen our potential spouses? Should it become a legal necessity to ban say, genetically blind people from producing children? When do we draw the line? Do we have to the revert to eugenic ideals of the Nazis on some genetic grounds? These are the REALLY important questions with no simple answers. As some here may have already mentioned, the genetic argument puts us on a slippery slope that those of us with no moral backbone (i.e. sense of responsilbilty) can't even fathom, let alone generating well informed and thought out opinons.
In fact, it is no different for marrying someone with a genetic abnormallity. For instance, you may have sickle cell anemia. Then your spouse (NO family relations whatsoever) happens to be a sickle cell anemia carrier, but doesn't suffer from the condition due to her normal 2nd copy of the X chromosome. Your children would have a 50% chance of suffering from the condition. So should we BAN the marriage and the right to generate offspring on genetic grounds?
All this raises serious social issues. So, do we HAVE to genetically screen our potential spouses? Should it become a legal necessity to ban say, genetically blind people from producing children? When do we draw the line? Do we have to the revert to eugenic ideals of the Nazis on some genetic grounds? These are the REALLY important questions with no simple answers. As some here may have already mentioned, the genetic argument puts us on a slippery slope that those of us with no moral backbone (i.e. sense of responsilbilty) can't even fathom, let alone generating well informed and thought out opinons.
Unfortunately, all the above is absolutely true EVERYWHERE. It's also true that humans are still more animal than civillized, constructive intellects. Just a quick look at history will convince anyone with at least half a brain and common sense that what I've said is absoluely true.
Fact is, humans in general are still a bunch of chimpanzees. If any threat is sensed, the first thoughts are kill, annihilate, eradicate and exterminate the preceived "threat". Long term solutions are almost NEVER valued; only the quick, cheap and easy ones that are guaranteed to lead to even more serious problems.
Just take a look at what happened to Germany before Hitler's rise to power and WW2. Germany was the loser of WW1, with it and its people oppressed and left without hope for the mistakes of greedy and self serving leaders(like alpha males in chimpanzee society). Restricting military power wasn't such a bad idea, but as usual with western politics, they just HAD to impose economic sanctions that squeeze the life out of the geramn people. With this kind of exploitation and obscene oppression, it was no wonder that Hitler and the 3rd reich rose to power. As evil as fascist ideas were, they offered hope to a hopeless people, at least before the war which wrecked them all over agian. It was inevitable.
Why all this? Like chimpanzees, the victors of WW1 wanted to impose their revenge on the loser (Germany). Who cares about our humanity and long term future as long as we get our revenge. The result? A MASSIVE backfire that could have destroyed humanity beyond hope.
Of course, this is not fully understandable UNLESS one has seen all major facets of society. It is an understanding that cannot just be taught or learned. It must be lived.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
Last time I checked, adjsutable caster is standard in most if not all cars with double wishbone front suspension. As I've mentioned before, Pajeros had adjustable caster since the first model and have retained this capability even to this day (by sticking to their trademark independent duoble wishbone design). This is true of practically all pickup trucks with double wishbones too, along with all double wishbone front suspension sedans and performance cars I've worked on.
Conclusion: All double wishboned front LFS cars MUST have adjsutable camber. This is thankfully true in the current LFS liuneup of cars. However, IRL, Mcpherson strut fronts CAN have their front casters adjsuted with relatively minimal cost even in stock form (castor plates are one way to do it), or in LFS since all the road cars are practically streetable track cars anyway, so it isn't a stretch to modify them for larger castor adjustments. Seriously, if I wanted to drive my car on a track regularly, I would gladly invest in 2-4 way race dampers, race tuned springs and so on.
However, what matters most is still to enable assymetric settings. Don't be surpsrised if you discover that some cars are assymetrically set in OEM. This is true for cars that range form pickup trucks to high performance sports cars. For roadable track cars such as those we drive in LFS, assymetric sets are necessary to compensate for the inherent assymetry in L/R weight distribution of production based cars.
Conclusion: All double wishboned front LFS cars MUST have adjsutable camber. This is thankfully true in the current LFS liuneup of cars. However, IRL, Mcpherson strut fronts CAN have their front casters adjsuted with relatively minimal cost even in stock form (castor plates are one way to do it), or in LFS since all the road cars are practically streetable track cars anyway, so it isn't a stretch to modify them for larger castor adjustments. Seriously, if I wanted to drive my car on a track regularly, I would gladly invest in 2-4 way race dampers, race tuned springs and so on.
However, what matters most is still to enable assymetric settings. Don't be surpsrised if you discover that some cars are assymetrically set in OEM. This is true for cars that range form pickup trucks to high performance sports cars. For roadable track cars such as those we drive in LFS, assymetric sets are necessary to compensate for the inherent assymetry in L/R weight distribution of production based cars.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
IRL, to setup a car optimally, you need to measure the weights of each individual corner and end up with assymetric spring and damper rates. Given that we mostly race with the driver alone, the ideal setups should be made with the driver weight and effects on weight distribution accounted for.
Besides,the only way to setup a car optimally for an oval is assymetrically. We could already setup tires for each individual corner, so logically the springs/dampers should be seperatley adjustable too.
Besides,the only way to setup a car optimally for an oval is assymetrically. We could already setup tires for each individual corner, so logically the springs/dampers should be seperatley adjustable too.
With handbrakes IRL, it's just the tension of the handbrake cable that relates to the clamping pressure the table would generate on the brake drum/disc. Basically it depends on how far and hard you pull it with your hands. It's seperate from your normal hydraulic foot brakes, and the only way to change both the handbrake and service brakes together is via a change of pads/disc/drum/capliper(i.e. change of masome major brake components).
That all explains why handbrakes could very well be STILL operational even when the hydraulics are gone. That's also why handbrakes and service brakes should be seperately adjusted in LFS too. Of course, sensible limits to the peaks to handbrake force should be set based on the maximum normal braking torque too.
That all explains why handbrakes could very well be STILL operational even when the hydraulics are gone. That's also why handbrakes and service brakes should be seperately adjusted in LFS too. Of course, sensible limits to the peaks to handbrake force should be set based on the maximum normal braking torque too.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
For people theat cheat online, the only real solution is to permanently ban them from online racing. If you don't intend to race properly, don't race at all.
But, as we all know, all licensed drivers PAID good money for our licenses. Just keeping them away from online racing is acceptable as long as the single player game still works. This relieves the honest players of having to deal with cheaters without being complete jerks and ripping away a program bought with hard earned money.
Hope this sums up what all honest and reasonable LFS licensed racers want.
But, as we all know, all licensed drivers PAID good money for our licenses. Just keeping them away from online racing is acceptable as long as the single player game still works. This relieves the honest players of having to deal with cheaters without being complete jerks and ripping away a program bought with hard earned money.
Hope this sums up what all honest and reasonable LFS licensed racers want.
How TC would actually work is really different car to car. For instance, some earlier range rovers with TCs struggle in snow as TC basially tries to stop ALL wheelspin. On the contrary, the current TC and stability control on the latest model Pajero works wonders. A combination of better hardware and software. For the Pajero, the TC map changes once you shift to 4HLc or 4LLc (center diff locked).
Of corse, this is somewhat oversimplified, but the secrert to making TC work well is to allow some limited wheelspin, just enough to get going smoothly, without letting things out of control. With gyroscopic yaw snensors, the vehicle could be made to move well in snow wilst still allowing reasonable directional control.
Of corse, there's no substitue for 4WD and studded tires if maximum snow performance is required from a 4 wheeled car.
As the saying goes, you can't just fix all hardware problems with sotware.
As if that's impressive. The current Mitsubishi Triton sold in South East Asia makes 136ps@3500rpm and 304Nm@2000rpm from a common rails intercooled turbo 4D56, a 2477cc engine with a history stretching back more than 2 decades. It's basically what a fundamentally durable block design that's gradually refined over time would do when coupled with new technology. The vehible tops out at about 167kph, which isn't bad at all for a picku turck that weighs almost 1.9 tonnes empty and isn't too sleek, an inherent trait of the basic shape of pickup trucks.
The 4m41, a 3.2L intercooled turbo diesel with direct injection and common rail fuelling makes 161hp@3800rpm. It tops out at over 180kph. Granted, the current Pajero is slightly more aerodynamic then a Hiace which is basically a loaf of bread trying to cut through air.
Since drag increases by the square of velocity and power requirements grow by the cube of linear velocity increase, it is impossible for a loaf of bread to reach 240kph with "only" 117DIN. Unless, of course, Toyota has made some aero breakthroughs that I (and the engineering community in general) am not aware of.
I really wish they'll make turbo version of the FZ road car. An LFS version of the 911 turbo. IRL, 996 turbos with reliable 700+hp engines do exist courtesy of specialist porsche tuners such as RUF, Brabus, etc. In fact they are actually listed as car manufacturers since they do such thorough and professional work. They basaicall re-engineer cars to higher levels of reliable performance instead of just banging on a few bolt on mods and hoping for the best.
Due to the serious unfair advantages a properly developed 4wd car, 4wds are all but banned from track racing (of course there are exceptions such as circuit prepped EVOs and Subarus, but those are specilalized classes, not mainstream racers such as GT1s, GTRs, LMP1s, etc.
Wonder what a twin turbocharged, 750hp FZR could do with the same aero as the current FZR but with a rear biased 4wd system, like the 40/60 F/R maximum front bias of RL 4wd porsches. The tyre package should be similiar to the current FZR too, but maybe just slightly wider. Some power to the front wheels in such a powerful car would do wonders for putting power to the ground whilst helping to relieve the inherent tendency of the current FZR to eat rear tires significantlyfaster then the fronts. An interesting experiment.
Due to the serious unfair advantages a properly developed 4wd car, 4wds are all but banned from track racing (of course there are exceptions such as circuit prepped EVOs and Subarus, but those are specilalized classes, not mainstream racers such as GT1s, GTRs, LMP1s, etc.
Wonder what a twin turbocharged, 750hp FZR could do with the same aero as the current FZR but with a rear biased 4wd system, like the 40/60 F/R maximum front bias of RL 4wd porsches. The tyre package should be similiar to the current FZR too, but maybe just slightly wider. Some power to the front wheels in such a powerful car would do wonders for putting power to the ground whilst helping to relieve the inherent tendency of the current FZR to eat rear tires significantlyfaster then the fronts. An interesting experiment.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG