I'm not saying we just copy the car and its name and face copyright. I'm suggesting the use of it as a MODEL CAR. BTW, the XR GTT is practically a Mitsubishi Starion carbon copy, though since LFS uses no brand names, we don't have to worry about Mitsubishi knocking at our beloved developers' doors for copyright infringement.

I'm just trying to argue a point as logically and strongly as practically possible. I have no real intentions to offend anyone, but there is just too much negative sentiment to certain things in this forum. However, I do apologize for any misunderstandings. I simply like to have us LFS racers keep more open minds and not resort to baseless opinion only. As to my longer than average posts, I'm not our classic attention seeker. I'm just trying to be thorough.

BTW, circuits aren't necessarily overtaking haven either (Monte Caro, anyone?). As for mountain passes, they are terribly underrated. I find it hard to believe that you'll ACTUALLY get sick of tarmac rallying! And I thought you were a true moorsport nut like me. As for overtaking, it is possible, though it sometimes requires some unconventional techniques that hardcore circuit guys cringe at. IRL, mountain passes are more dangerous than any circuit, and they present a unique challenge. For instance, one could design some overtaking sections into the course that could reasonbly exist IRL passes, but need real mastery of driving technique and the course to pull off safely and consistantly. So much for the Hotlap then get bored argument. IRL, it could take months if not years of experience to fully master a mountain pass, given adequate driving skills.

If crude oil, the only source of petrol, was inexhaustable and easily mined for eternity, then petrol won't be so bad in the long run if we generatestraegies to keep exhaust emmsions in check. If we start regrowing deforested plant life, then petrol is fine as long as it's inexhaustable.

Unfortunately, the petrolhead community MUST wake up to the fact that the above ifs will never come true, especially with todays socioeconomic climate. Unless there's biopetrol or some other infinitely renewable form of petrol (like biodiesel), our petrol prices will rise beyond the range of your middle classed car enthusiast. Anyway, we are already running on borrowed time as oil stocks dwindle and oil gets more difficult and expensive to access. Sorry fellow petrolheaded LFS drivers, but simply can't bury our heads in the sand any longer. I hope none of you here are petrol sniffers...

Biodiesel just needs more biotechnological developments to succeed. Believe me, the biotech industry is no slouch when it comes to technological progress. As new biodiesel crops are discovered or created, we will have a much more susainable source of fuel. in lay man's terms, here's how it goes:

Diesel car burns diesel. With high tech and highly effective emmsions control systems, the dominant emmisions will be CO2 and H20(water). To MAKE oil for biodiesel, plants need to INGEST CO2. So overall, our carbon footprint is lower then dpetrol engines can ever hope for.

The truth is, we WILL burn through crude oil supplies faster than nature can ever cope with. Energy needs will only grow if humanity progresses economically in the future.

My real point is that until a relatively clean and efficient way to generate electricty is created (such as nuclear fusion), biodiesels and high tech diesels are our best PRACTICAL choice for now.

BTW, I vote to give the Tesla a go in LFS.

Last edited by Jamexing, Fri 18 Aug 2006, 13:17.

Quote from P5YcHoM4N :

Yes, it is. I can get from where I live, to uni (salford) with half a tank of fuel. The car in question being a Vauxhall [Holden/Opel] Omega 2.0i 16v CDX Auto. It gets ~35MPG (~16 in town). And even after the tip their is still plently left in the tank. 250miles is a very short distance.

Hell, when I went to Northhampton last week the Ford Focus 06[I think] we rented (Because Vauxhalls are more unreliable then Fords and the Omega has spent most of it's life on a ramp) did 250miles, well just over 250 as they had to pay for extra distance which wasn't covered in around 3/4 of a tank, and it was a baby car.

Plus lets add to the fact that if a car is running low on fuel you pull into a garage, 3 minutes later you're back on the road. If an electric car starts to run low you pull into a garage, 3 hours later you're back on the road...

How much power does it make? That's a major missing variable. If I'm getting a Lamborghini Gallardo vs Nissan Pulsar comparsion on fuel economy, I'll simply dimiss this a copmpletely invalid comparison. At 2.0L, your car must be either a massively tuned NA or heavily turbocharged to generate 245hp. 122.5hp/L? That's approaching 4G63 (Lancer Evolution) territory! Of course your Toyota Echo is more economical than a Supra.

It is true that the current plans for the Tesla aren't for the long distance travel, YET. As for recharge speed, that'll only inprove as technology progresses. Remeber when it used to take a day to charge your NiCads? These days, NiMH cells are fully chargable in a matter of a few hours. A few years down the line, an EV might have a recharge times of less then half an hour, if allowed to progress as quickly as practically possible.

Without support for new technology, technology and society will never progress and we are all doomed to a future of endless crude oil addiction.

I'm not trying to bash you in any way , wheelhammer, but hybrids are what smart engineers call "An Oymoronically complex solution to a relatively simpler problem". Since only one engine will run most of the time, the other usually spends a lot of time as dead weight. It's doing the job of 1 motor with 2 motors. Besides, they'll never be of zero exhaust emmsions like true EVs. There're just a marketting scam to be absolutely blunt. As for diesel Hybrid, it's pointless, since diesels already run so well at part throttle anyway. Petrol hybrids make sense because the motor's high torque at low revs nature(great for raffic) makes up for petrol peakiness and the need to run WOT to achieve maximum efficiency. A diesel hybrid will be just an exercise of maximum complexity for unjustifiably low comparative gain.

I'm just suggesting that a RACE PREPPED version(not street or drift car!) be used. And if the drifters want to drift, it's their perogative. Since LFS is a car sim and cars could actually be driven that way IRL, why not just let them? Slick, or no slick, drifters will alway drift whatever cars they could drift anyway. The biggest LFS fans are still the genuine speed oriented guys like me. To me, drifting or gripping are both acceptable as long as they make me faster for whichever particular sections of a track.

I'm not pro D1, but neither am I a hardcore hostile like a lot if not most of you here. Remember, LFS is a car simulator after all, unless I've been fooled by misleading advertising (then I really want to sell my license). Whatever could be reasonbly done IRL with a car, it MUST be doable in LFS as well. BTW, I don't agree with extreme steering lock changes.

Are so many guys hardcore hostiles to any track that resembles a mountain pass? If so, then you really should spend more time driving mountain passes IRL and see what you're missing out.

I bet the only reason for this anti AE86 sentiment is the fact that it happens to be drifted a lot IRL. It's also used as a real racecar as well, so what's wrong with it?

I'm just suggesting a candidate for a RWD contender for the low donforce slick class. If that is not relevant to our topic, I don't know what is. BTW, the AE86 isn't my pet car.

I'm sick and tired of people bullshitting me just because I voice my genuine opinions and ideas that could make LFS better. If suggesting a model car for our UFR/XFR competitor is irrelevant, I'll unregister myself form this forum ASAP. Now, how do I get rid of my S2 license...

With this attitude, no wonder the LFs community is still so small.

Guy's, I just had a startling moment of clearity. The perfect contender for the non-downforce slicks class is:

AE86 Trueno with 4AGE (Formula Atlantic 240hp, 11,000rpm type ) engine, with slicks and no significant downforce. (From initial D )

At around 1000kg (in street trim!), it is very close to the FWD cars of this class. All it needs is a roll cage and all the usual race prep (lightening (stripped interiors), bracing, etc) to get it to race weight.

Besides, if LFS is to reach its full potential, it must expand and attract new licencees. Imagine how many sim driving AE8 fans we could attract with this.

Last edited by Jamexing, Thu 17 Aug 2006, 11:04.

My real point isn't really the top speed number. It's the fact that THIS much power generates such an abysmal top speed in such a small car. Either the mini is remarkably poor aerodynamiccally, or the motor has problems at high speeds.

Li-ion just happen to be the best commercially viable electric batteries ATM. So do not assume they will be de rigeur in the future. If people really care, we'll already be seriously seeking superior technologies. Let me enlighten you to the fact that your petrol tanks are MUCH BIGGER bombs then the batteries, so that's a moot point. Seriously, ATM, whichever EV is better isn't my personal concern.

By the way, nice bimmer! Wish I could take a look at yours someday. BTW, thanks for sharing my dream of representing alternatives to petrol power in LFS.

Last edited by Jamexing, Thu 17 Aug 2006, 10:34.

I'm saying that until something like nuclear fusion comes along, diesel is still a better short term choice. And how often can we actually go at WOT?

As for soot filters, there are various ways to deal with them. You could just burn them off, or we could get real serious with carbon recyclng.

So, what's the source of soot? Imcomplete conbustion. Again, something that will seriously drop as injection pressures go up and fuel atomization and injection strategies improve (heard of 2 stage injection timings?). So as technology improves, the soot problem falls by default.

Diesel clatter? What about petrol shriek? Seriously, even my old 4D56 has problems trying to wake anyone up form any radius of greater than 3m. And mind you, it's way within safe noise limits. You can't (barely) hear its arrival until its closer than 10m (at normal throttle). Engine noise? Subjective pop culture/ fashion crap. Some like diesel throatiness, other like petrol shriek, so it's a moot point. Besides, cars today are already endangering lives via overisolation, being sonoise insulated that the driver recieves absolutely NO useful feedback.

Tristan, I know you're a hardcore petrolhead and accuse me of hardcore diesel advocacy. If I was truely a diesel at all cost nut, why would I like something like the Tesla? The truth is, I'll support any technology that's potentially better than the existing ones. If nuclear fusion is already perfected, I'll choose a high performance electric car over any IC car. And 250miles == short range? A petrol car with a 50L tank and 183kW won't do too much better.

Conclusively, I'm just saying that diesel currently has the most PRACTICAL potential, since we've dealt with IC engines for over a century. If there is any hope of better car engines in the future, alternative engine technologies to petrol must be acceped and developed. Otherwise, our inability to seek for better power sources will be our undoing.

Last edited by Jamexing, Fri 18 Aug 2006, 10:09.

I'm disappointed that when it comes to diesels, most people in this forum seem to bury their head in the sands and resort to typical hardcore petrolhead dark ages crap. I'm surprised that so many here still equate diesel with black smoke.

This unfortunately unjustified black smoky diesel mentality is so prevalent thanks again to our world of mindless captalism. I bet most of you get your diesel impressions from 18 wheelers smoking like mad. The horrible truth is that environmental concerns always take a back seat to corporate bottom lines. If it wasn't for the new diesel emmsion laws in the US, no one would bother to upgrade their HD diesel truck engines to current levels of emmsion control.

Diesel always dirtier than petrol? You guys must be stuck in the 80's. My 1994 2.5L NA diesel Pajero (4D56) which emits NO visible smoke after a 1 minute warmup. It doesn't even have ANY of the modern emmisions control systems such as soot filters! I actually pushed it to its (4700rpm) redline on each shift just to test it, and guess what? No detectable smoke. It was performed under load, with someone at the back to observe the exhaust emmisons (don't try this yoursleves folks!) whilst on the move. Tests at no load (static car) again yielded no visible smoke. All done with traditional indirect injection (no common rail or other late tech).

When was the last time you see a well-maintained 2006 3.2L turbodiesel Pajero emit any visible emmsions? Bet none. The truth is, diesel is superior to petrol in all emmisions except NOx. That is simply a result of high air to fuel ratios, since our air is over 70% N2 after all. Robust (sulfur tolerant) NOx scrubbers already exist, so that will soon be a VERY moot point.

Petrols have always traditionally had problems with unburnt hydrocabons. If you read my posts from the diesel thread, you should understand why this is. The only way to generate significant unburnt diesel from a diesel engine is to significantly over fuel it or with poor fuel atomization. Petrols are always run at least slightly rich, and at any throttle setting below WOT, it only runs richer. And I have a hard time believing petrol emmsions don't have any carcinogenic effects too.

For the truely environmentally concerned, do remember that the AUDI R10 is still the QUIETEST race engine in recent history. Diesel turbo synergy... There is no substitute.

Unless people (especially americans) stop loosing their unfounded stigma of diesels, our energy, economic and environmental problems will only grow worse as we enslave ourselves to petroleum only gasoline. Although clean electric generation would be the ultimate solution, that is still too far fetched. Currently, diesels are one of the still relatively underdeveloped IC engines that still possese massive potential.

Speaking of black oils, that's pretty much standard practice these days for all kinds of engines, though its just more obvious for diesels. Today's detergent oils are designed to clean and suspend residual soot, and since the standard diesel oil change interval specification has grown form the old 5000km standard to the more recent 10,000km standard, this only gets more obvious. Contrary to poular belief, colour alone is a poor indicator of oil viality (except for extreme cases). The darkening oil doesn't mean that your engine's extra dirty. It simply means that the oil is doing its job.

If biodiesel production technology is allowed to develop full blast, we won't be complaining about petrol prices now. With reason biotechnological discoveries, the effeciency of biodiesel generation will only go up. Then again, we've got crude oil companies watching us. A recently discovered method to "grow" biodiesel via the use of specilalized algea had a oil production to area of land ratio than any of the standard contemporary source (canola oil, soy oil, peanut oil, plam oil, etc). Anyway, it's via photosynthesis, so a large portion of the CO2 emmitted from your biodiesel engines go right back to new oils. The circle of biodisesel life. A beautiful fusion of biological and technological solutions.

We must agree that petrols are facing obsolescence. It's about time we let technology progress and give a chance to potentially superior alternatives.

Last edited by Jamexing, Thu 17 Aug 2006, 08:32.

Well, as I said, as long as something like nuclear fusion remians unrealized, the EV idea is practically useless.

There's been research on the idea of HCCI engines (Homogenous charge Compression Ignition). This is basically just further dieselization of the petrol engine. So why not just advance diesels real quickly? Diesels are already compression ignited, run unthrottled (fuel flow rate controlled only) and with higher pressure piezo electric injectors, more optimized injection timing and spray patterns, you simply end up with a more and more atomized and homogenous charge.

The point is, why bother with petrol when diesel already runs on the same principle that petrol tries to emulate? This gasoline engine at all cost mentality is highly oxymoronic. Gasoline is absolutely dependant on fossil fuels, whereas diesels could use both mineral and organic fuels. In fact, Dr Rudolf Diesel created this type of engine as a way for farmers to run engines with the fuels (peanut oil at the time) they produce themselves.

The truth is , once the technology that goes into the AUDI R10 hits the road, it'll be the final nail in the coffin for petrol cars, at least in Europe. As diesel performance and emmisions control advances, even the americans will be force to see the light.

What stuns me is how many members of this world community simply ignore such a potential solution to their motoring problems that's right under their noses. Well, Malaysia currently has a pretty sustantial stock of palm oil that's heavily underpriced (below proper market price) and practically neglected. Ah, unbridled capatalism.

I'm saying that transpotation of petrol and diesel isn't as inefficient as you might think. Distillation is just a matter of heating it up to a certain tenperature and collecting different distillates based their evaporative temps. Since the oil industry is VERY old, the actual processing is remarkably efficient, Hey, inefficiecny = unnecessary cost = worse bottom line. And all you seem to care cbout is the top speed. You completely neglected the facts that the Tesla is more economical and has a longer range. So it's a rather silly comparison.

Did I get this wrong? 640hp?!?! and a 0-60 in 4.5s? Top speed of ONLY 240kph?!?! Slooow.

Let me remind you that Li-ion cells are A:not heavy and Botentially recyclable. It's a base metal based ion. And you completely neglect all the upcoming new electrical power storage technologies (nanohair charge accumulators, etc). As for EVs, if you read Racecar Engineering (i'm a regular reader), there's even a 4WD LX style roadster with 1 motor per wheel and scary top speeds as well. They're even planning a single seater version.

Finally, I thoght this was an LFS forum, so its about cars, not the sizes of your organs. However, I do wonder what car are you talking about. Is it a stripped compact sedan? A small hatchback? A souped up mini? Be more specific if you want an honest comparison and discussion, otherwise I could just say that I own an F-1 car that weighs only 500kg empty.

Last edited by Jamexing, Wed 16 Aug 2006, 17:37.

Just add an Lancer Evolution like car and license sales are guaranteed to soar.

Last edited by Jamexing, Wed 16 Aug 2006, 16:39.

Same with my Mitsubishi Tredia. Not really a skeleton car, just lacks power windows, auto transmission, power steering and all the unnecessary gadgets. And it's bigger than your car, being a mid sized sedan on the compact side.

Oh, I must state that you've overstated the safety of modern cars. Car vs padestrian? Padestrian usually dies or suffers massive injuries (800kg vs human mass). If you crash your 2006 Mercedes into a tree at 60kph, you'll likely die anyway. No electronic wizardry and number of airbags can compensate for lack of basic structural integrity (lack of genuine roll cage structure) and proper restraint (Race Harnesses).

Last edited by Jamexing, Wed 16 Aug 2006, 17:17.

Currently, we have a pretty decent suspension damage system, though it's sometimes oversenstitive (too easily damaged). Rememner the BF1 at Kyot Oval problem, whereby one side of the rear suspension always cops damage even at pretty high ride heights (no detectable bottoming).

My point is, as good as this fire suggestion is, it's useless until the full damage model (engines and chassis damage) was fully modelled. Last thing we need is random fires. Besides, cars don't catch fire much these days unless something major blows, such as the engine.

My Mitsubishi Tredia weighs only 880kg kerb (half tank of fuel, all fluids topped). Not too bad, eh? If it goes for further weight reductions (roll cage, carbon fiber doors, hood and front fenders, and all the standard racing weight reduction procedures), it'll make your 800kg car look obese. Even if I mount a Lancer Evolution drivetrain and engine into it, it could still weigh under 1000kg(all out racing trim, of course). And it's a proper 4 door salloon car!

My point is, you get something that's practically quicker and more high tech with LESS weight. It's no stripper car, so don't reasonbly expect under 1 ton weights. And don't forget that the battery packs could easily be mounted as low as possible for low COG, since they're quit flat anyway.

Overall, its a massive progress over the old useless EVs. This thing is actually quick and has decent range! Now that's progress.

Last edited by Jamexing, Wed 16 Aug 2006, 16:25.

F-1 cars definitely have rev limiters, in the form of adjustable max revs. And GT cars definitely do, simply because it's so easy to overrev them with their ultralight(if any) flywheels. Porsche GT3s have rev limiters too. heck, even my friends Corrolla Sportivo has a rev limiter (8200rpm).

13,500rpm. Hmmmmmmmm.....

No power steering. Been waiting forever for such a modern car (McLaren F1 not counted of course).

Excellent brakes and suspension. Who said EVs are meant to handle like crap?

Beautiful Yokohama Neova Advan tires and forged Al wheels? Check. One of the most beautiful powerbands I've seen so far? Check(Will only get better if they actually succeed). Cutting edge technology all-round? Check.

Weight under 1200kg! Makes your Toyota Corrolla look obese.

LFS could obviously use such a technological breakthrough. This thing could dominate any rack that emphasizes cornering and acceleration over top speed. Besides, 130mph isn't slow, unless you're doing the Autobahn or Monza.

Last edited by Jamexing, Wed 16 Aug 2006, 13:54.

Good news is, battery technology will only get better. With nanotechnology, super capacitors and other futue echnologies, it's only time before the battery problem is solved. Besides, today's batteries are mercury free as well.

Given the chance, it's only amatter of time before elecrical storage exceeds hydrocarbon energy density.

Reimnds me of the diesel post where hardcore petrolheads try everything they could to bash diesels. If diesels evolve as quickly as they did in the past decade for the next 10 years, petrols would be almost obsolete.

Tristan, I agree with your practical concerns about today's electric cars, except for the battery which will see good development in the near future. However, unless we manage to master Nuclear fusion or some other relatively clean electrical generation technologies, your petrol or diesel acars are still ultimately cleaner.

Last edited by Jamexing, Wed 16 Aug 2006, 13:25.

That's why I said that unless you actually HAVE a much cleaner way to generate power than today's methods, the actual well to wheel efficiency is even worse. Basically, it's well -> power station -> car instead of straight hydrocarbon to car.

Electric cars are clean ONLY IF there is a clean way to generate electrical power.

Truth is, the redlines for most of the road cars are absolutely fine. It's just the lack of rev limiters that really messes things around and allow for all kinds of weird gearbox settings. The RB4 redlines at 7500, the FXO is 8000+ I believe, and the XR GTT is not too different from the RB4.

The truth is, there is no excessive rpm problem with most of the cars. It's just the lack of rev limiters to stop engines form going too far over the redline. For instance, a 7800rpm rev limiter for the RB4 would be ideal, giving just enough of an overrvving buffer without going too much beyond the peak power range(if they fix the powerband )/

Last edited by Jamexing, Wed 16 Aug 2006, 13:55.

I fully agree that this is a great idea, but until LFS simulates brake temps, it's just pointless eye candy. Anyway, if there was a poll on this, I would have agreed.

It's a brilliant car. If only we can figure out a WAY better method to generate electricity than coal, nuclear fission, etc. If nuclear fusion power plants work, this car would be PERFECT. No fuel surge issues, no weight distribution vriance coaused by fuel use, etc. No more exhaust emmsions issues.

What appeals to me is the fact that this is another show of the LFS spirit (David vs BIG CORPORATE GOLIATH).

Last edited by Jamexing, Wed 16 Aug 2006, 10:15.

It isn't really the FXO that's too powerful and I apologize if you misunderstood me. It is just the fact that FXO makes a complete joke out of the other 2 cars. To confirm what I said, just check all current WRs and you'll see that I'm no lier. Unfortunately, it's hard to squeeze all I need to say into this post without repeating my old "Severe 4WD defeciency in LFS" post, so I suggest you read it. Sorry if it's a bit long, but it does fill you in on most if not all of the details.

Good point. Just tell me how it goes.

You are absolutely welcome to run 108RON Lemans grade fuel if you're trying to tune the heck out of your turbo engine.

Well, as long as you can AFFORD to use 108RON continuously.