What happens when you twin turbocharge a Dodge Viper's engine to 1000+bhp and mount it to a chassis MUCH more effecient than a Veyron's? Hmmm......
The real problem with the bugatti was that it was built around arbitrary targets (e.g. MUST have 1000ps and 245mph top speed) and had it's appearance revealed WAY too early n development. Usuually with such potent machines the car starts with a basic bodystyle which is modified to work aerodynamically before it is even shown. Instead, they worked the other way round, forcing themselves to make this aerodynamically (and stylistically) disasterous shape to stick to generate sufficient downforce without generating too much drag. The shape itself generates MASSIVE aero lift. Then there's all the radiators required to keep the 1000hp thing well-cooled, adding again MORE drag.
The final nail in the coffin is the fact that the McLaren F-1 could reach the same top speed with only around 750hp. All while sticking on the ground with no obvious spoiler (besides the tiny one at the back that pops up partially at high speeds).
The real problem with the bugatti was that it was built around arbitrary targets (e.g. MUST have 1000ps and 245mph top speed) and had it's appearance revealed WAY too early n development. Usuually with such potent machines the car starts with a basic bodystyle which is modified to work aerodynamically before it is even shown. Instead, they worked the other way round, forcing themselves to make this aerodynamically (and stylistically) disasterous shape to stick to generate sufficient downforce without generating too much drag. The shape itself generates MASSIVE aero lift. Then there's all the radiators required to keep the 1000hp thing well-cooled, adding again MORE drag.
The final nail in the coffin is the fact that the McLaren F-1 could reach the same top speed with only around 750hp. All while sticking on the ground with no obvious spoiler (besides the tiny one at the back that pops up partially at high speeds).
That's actually a great idea as it gives us the true driving force on the wheels, allowing MUCH better gear tuning.
+infinity
I don't really care if the shift points are manually or automatically set if there's a chassis dyno that churns out wheel torque graphs, since it won't make any difference.
If compression damping was huge on both outside ends, you'll actually have a case where the outside refuses to compress quickly enough to accomodate for the lack on inside wheel droop.
IRl, ARBs are solid or hollow cylindircal bars and even blade shaped long pieces of metal that is attached to an attachement link on each end of teh suspension. When both wheels compress together and in sync, the ARBs generate no net effect, but when 2 sides move asyncronously, it acts to limit wheel droop.
I'm saying that it basically gets you the same effect as using extra stiff springs whilst actually allowing the suspension to recover camber as designed. And that too stiff is somewhat like over stiff springs, but only on the inside end, not allowing the inside tire to contact the ground well.
For instance, a car with little rear roll stiffness and massive front rollbars would actually lift the front wheel off the ground on exit acceleration, thus less overall grip on the front. Though from pure roll stiffness point of view it seems equivalent to using equivalently stiff springs, its is not so because the front suspension could still compress and recover camber. Anyway, with the inside tire of the ultra stiff swaybar end off the grond, the overall grip is actually less, as serious load sensitivity comes to play. A great example is RL high powered but raction challenged racing RWD that lift the front off on exit accleration. It actually results in less overall grip as the car is practically a tricycle in this state, but it might be somewhat desirable due to the car's naturally tail happy nature as it induces understeer.
Yes, if both ends have equivalent roll stiffnesses, then the net effect on steady state is less weight shift for a given lateral acceleration, but during the initial turn in phase the overly stiff inside end could actually lift off the ground like over stiff springs would. This actually happens quite a bit IRL with cars running SSBS (soft springs BIG swaybar) setups.
Hope this clears up the confusion.
For instance, a car with little rear roll stiffness and massive front rollbars would actually lift the front wheel off the ground on exit acceleration, thus less overall grip on the front. Though from pure roll stiffness point of view it seems equivalent to using equivalently stiff springs, its is not so because the front suspension could still compress and recover camber. Anyway, with the inside tire of the ultra stiff swaybar end off the grond, the overall grip is actually less, as serious load sensitivity comes to play. A great example is RL high powered but raction challenged racing RWD that lift the front off on exit accleration. It actually results in less overall grip as the car is practically a tricycle in this state, but it might be somewhat desirable due to the car's naturally tail happy nature as it induces understeer.
Yes, if both ends have equivalent roll stiffnesses, then the net effect on steady state is less weight shift for a given lateral acceleration, but during the initial turn in phase the overly stiff inside end could actually lift off the ground like over stiff springs would. This actually happens quite a bit IRL with cars running SSBS (soft springs BIG swaybar) setups.
Hope this clears up the confusion.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
Well, ARBs have little to do with bottoming resistance, unlike springs where stiffer and/or more bump travel gets you less/eliminated bottoming. ARBs don't quite work like stuffer springs. Instead , they work to reduce net roll angle by removing weight from the inside tires and shifting it to the outside wheel. Basically, the roll angle reduction is due to the fact that the inside wheels are prevented from extending a far as the springs would allow. This has the benefit of keeping ride height low whilst cornering. It also allows the suspension to work better by allowing the softer springs to compress, resulting in camber gain from the suspension that would otherwise be unused if the springs are set stiff enough for the same roll resistance.
The lessened body roll angle allows better contact angle of the outside tire to the ground, all the more crucial since cornering grip is dominated by the more heavily loaded outside tire. However, too much ARB do have some major negatives. It does result in more uneven tire loading, and too much can actually result in less overall grip, especially if the inside tires are lifted off the ground, turning the car into a mototrbike. If a one-sided bump results in destabilization of the car but not bumps hitting both sides, then you know the ARB's too stiff.
Hope this clears things up on ARBs. All this assumes that LFS roll bars work EXACLTLY like the real things.
The lessened body roll angle allows better contact angle of the outside tire to the ground, all the more crucial since cornering grip is dominated by the more heavily loaded outside tire. However, too much ARB do have some major negatives. It does result in more uneven tire loading, and too much can actually result in less overall grip, especially if the inside tires are lifted off the ground, turning the car into a mototrbike. If a one-sided bump results in destabilization of the car but not bumps hitting both sides, then you know the ARB's too stiff.
Hope this clears things up on ARBs. All this assumes that LFS roll bars work EXACLTLY like the real things.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
That's actually not too far from what you should be aiming for, sepecially with a 4WD. The truth is, whils cornering, most of your time is spent on enrty and exit, whilst mid-corner time is usually the smallest except for large constant radius turns.
The thing with the RB4 is that it's quite nose heavy, with 55.7% mass at the front with the driver. Engine on the front axle also generates quite a bit of inertia, so it can't turn as quickly as a car like the RA (mid-engined, mass at center). To get the RB4 to handle well, you need to have some degree of oversteer tuned into the suspension. To do that, you can either increase rear antiroll or reduce front antiroll.
First thing to do is to make sure you've set both front and rear LSDs to clutch type. Set the power lock to maximum to get the most out of the traction afforded by 4WD. More power lock is actually good for the RB4 in all ways. More power lock up front reduces power on understeer, whilst at the rear gets more power to the better loaded wheel. Net effect is better corner exit drive and LESS exit understeer.
Next is the center differential. Keep the viscous lock high for maximum effective transfer of power to both axles. Don't worry about the slight increase in understeer, since you can actually tune turn in behavior much better with front and rear coast lock settings. Set it to a slightly rear biased configuration. This aids tire life and evens out tire temperature and wear front and rear. It also reduces exit understeer and actually take advantage of weight transfer to the rear on exits. More rear power gives it a more rear drive nature and vice-versa.
One of the great things of 4WD is that car balance can be tuned to a very large extent without suspension changes. The softer the coast setting on one end, the more easily it rotates as it more easily allows the wheels to turn at different relative speeds. For more delicate and precise throttle control, keep the coast settings high, but be warned that if you can't deal with the increased corner entry understeer with technique, then too high is a bad thing. On the other hand, too soft allows the wheels to lock more easily under braking and results in a less precisely throttle steerable car.
Hope this helps. If still in doubt, please enquire.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
So, what is the problem with your RB4 setup? Please clarify and I'll be able to help. Is it acceleration? Corner entry/mid/exit balance? Please clarify.
What's wrong with the current starting lights? A good idea, but not really needed.
The same question has bugged me for quite a while...
Well, tristan's incessant need to insult anyone he doesn't agree with doesn't help.
I'm not really any side on this, but this constant bickering isn't helping. All this bickering is so circular...
I say if there's no technical and reasonable arguments for and against more steering lock, someone PLEASE lock this thread.
Unfortunately, you're right. LFS threads do seem to have a habit of degenerating to personally directed bashings.
I'm surprised that this thread has lasted this long.
I still remember the time when a classmate of mine asked me to play one of those NFS:U (or whatever it was) games on his PSP to help him win a race and get some cash. I blitzed through a race at full speed from the get go, full throttle almost all the way accept for a few moderate and gentle curves. Figured out all the shortcuts in under 3 laps and straightlined through the course in record time, lapping the last few cars in a 5 lap race.
This for a guy who's never played that game before.
This for a guy who's never played that game before.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
It's called "an extremly simplified behavioral model with absolutly NO regard for the laws of physics."
Last edited by Jamexing, .
Problem is, if LFS track quality is to make the quantum leap required to compete with other sims on a level plane, especially in the future, an upgraded engine is an inevitability.
Personally, LFS is mostly about greatt physics for a pc racing sim, and to be honest the current graphics and level of track detail is still somewhat good, especially at higher graphics settings. However, if LFS is to be on par and even beat its competitors on all major planes (graphics, sound, etc), upgrades are a must. those who've tried U30 will already know about the sound upgrades made to the existing sound engine.
Seriously, if S3 is ever going to happen, graphics and sound upgrades will be just as essential as physics improvemnets too. Anything that aids immersion benefits a simulator of anything.
This thread about Saddam seems to revolve around the validity of the death sentence as a lawful sentence. However, lets's look back at a bit if history.
Remember the oil embargo era (1970s)? All OPEC members refused to sell oil to America. All BUT Saddam. He sold oil from his own country to the Americans while the rest of the middle east did otherwise. In fact, he was an American Ally for quite a while.
Ironic, isn't it, that the superpower he supported turned against him and sentenced him to death. Hmmm...
Remember the oil embargo era (1970s)? All OPEC members refused to sell oil to America. All BUT Saddam. He sold oil from his own country to the Americans while the rest of the middle east did otherwise. In fact, he was an American Ally for quite a while.
Ironic, isn't it, that the superpower he supported turned against him and sentenced him to death. Hmmm...
Well, newsflash: The earth is NOT FLAT.
Neither are rallycorss circuits.
Actually, this is all TOO real. The west DOES have a nasty habit of saying my way is the only way, every other way is wrong by default.
Money and power are the only universal languages humanity understands, and history proves it consistantly so.
Welcome to the real world, where only might is right. All else is irrelevant.
disclaimer: The above statements do NOT reflect my personal principles. They're merely observations.
Welcome to the real world, where only might is right. All else is irrelevant.
disclaimer: The above statements do NOT reflect my personal principles. They're merely observations.
I'll be surprised if they didn't want to kill him.
Welcome to the new world order. The reign of unprecedented chaos has only just begun.
Welcome to the new world order. The reign of unprecedented chaos has only just begun.
Or we could have a mountain path that winds all the way to the peak and back down to the start/finish line. It's still a loop and technically a closed circuit. Just a larger, longer, steeper and twistier than usual one.
All this in a package that's still somewhat roadable (if we use wide road super tires instead of slicks).
No CD player, check. No ABS, check. No TC, check. Absolutely NO useless components (e.g. cupholders), check!
Yes, people do resort to less than savoury tactics to force a win. Happens often IRL, though fortunately, I've met very few of them while racing LFS online to date. Of course, if they're always crashing around they can't win, unless they crash yourself off as well.
And I'm all for ballasts that actually make races fair. On the TBO class imbalance issue, no we do NOT need to ballast up the XR GTTs, only the FXOs which are absurdly fast compared to the RWD and 4WD. In the hands of skilled drivers, RB4 vs XR GTTs can be very good indeed. Just remember to use the FXO when someone else uses it if you're planning to win.
Or, we could just ballast up the FXOs for parity. Of course the ideal ballast could need some calculations and testing to figure out, but that's just the way it must be if ballasts are to be specified properly. All this assumes that drivers are all competent and drive properly (aka non-wreckers). IRL, many types of racecars are designed underweight and then brought to minimum legal weight via ballasts. The chief benefit of this is that ballasts are actually used to optimize mass distribution and polar moment of inertia as far as packaging limits would allow. Just some insights on RL racing practice.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
Speaking of heavy metal, why not this:
http://clientes.netvisao.pt/aagnelof/m1a2.jpg
Hasta La Vista, Baby. You are TERMINATED!
http://clientes.netvisao.pt/aagnelof/m1a2.jpg
Hasta La Vista, Baby. You are TERMINATED!
1st gear 110+kph, 2nd 155+kph, 3rd 200+kph...
Just goes to show what kind of SUPERCAR PERFORMANCE we're all missing.
LX8 - when too much power and performance is not enough (aka supercar).
Last edited by Jamexing, .
That's the major problem that I've been trying to highlight all along with ANY ballast system. When it's top reach the minumum weight for a class then fine. When it's objectively set to balance a class and everyone uses the identical ballast then it's all as fair as practically possible. The weight should of course be set after extensive testing of the involved cars in racing (not hotlap) setups over the race distances involved. But if servers get too much power in the amount of ballast to use, it WILL be abused. It's just human nature and I know it all too well as I deal with it IRL situations all too often.
Imagine if you've got a sever full of people who can't drive. Everyone races say, the FZ50. You tend to win quite consistantly simply because most are just too slow or can't even keep the car running straight. Next thing you know they'll say: "Not fair! You, too fast! Must slow you down with crippling ballast, MUHAHAHAHA!!!"
How's that for fair play? Not to mention what it'll do for LFS's reputatuion.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG