What a load of absolute garbage! FZR has "bad" weight distribution? You've got to be kidding me!
No other car in the GTR class has a better match of aero center of pressure and center of gravity than the FZR, so what on earth are you talking about? Oh wait, you don't.
If there was a real chance of severe injury or death, we can all be assured of the fact that far fewer racers would be as reckless as they are today. Nothing like a bit of pain and suffering (plus a few months of cardboard hospital food, severe immobility, etc) to put some sense into some people.
Thanks for reply Scawen. Well, lack of sleep does weird things to one's brain...
Anyway, I still wonder why there's no long sleeved 3 coloured LFS logo shirt. Would really like one since it suits the current weather better (winter). And I would really like the 3 coloured LFS logo for my shirt type of choice though unfortunately this option is absent. Maybe Victor could enlighten us on this.
Just wondering, why is there no long sleeved shirt with the full coloured LFS logo? Although personally I wished that the LFS logo are a bit bigger. Pictures of your chosen LFS car in front and back would be a very welcome touch.
BTW, Victor, what's the cost for sending these shirts to Australia, including all other possible costs from taxation to who knows what kinds of charges are imposed? I would really like to know the price range.
BTW, Victor, what's the cost for sending these shirts to Australia, including all other possible costs from taxation to who knows what kinds of charges are imposed? I would really like to know the price range.
What about the rest 5% aka 2 standard deviations away from the mean?
Frankly, most of the silly designs are the result of absolutely disregarding the laws of physics and mathematics. The worst example was the Bugatti Veyron, with a pre-aerodynamicist corrected shape shown to a bunch of overpriviledged old farts that have as much appreciation and regard for maths and physics as your average UK secondary student. This forced them down the path of an performance and engineering nightmare.
The McLaren F1 was the exact opposite, with excellent design AND engineering as the basis of the car. It's understated beauty remains the greatest of all supercars, not to mention it sheer performance that got Bugatti on this lunatic top speed chase in the first place.
The least the UK could do is to inspire a bit more passion for engineering, science and mathematics. At the current rate of decay, it's no wonder that many good engineering nad design jobs get outsourced. Last time I checked there was very little if any interest among primary and secondary students on engineering and/or design as a preferred career choice.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
Can't believe how people obsess over velocity scales that are different by a factor of only 1.61. What's next? Remove the tacho in the UF1 so it looks like your 70's POC shitbox?
A little tip on left foot braking on downforce cars:
As we all know, to get the most out of the downforce generated grip you need to set the brake force higher and more rear biased than optimal for lower speed lower downforce braking. The solution to overcoming this is a combination of reducing brake pressure and adding a bit of throttle as speed drops. This prevents excessive braking force at lower speeds and actively shifts brake bias forward when required.
Form the driver's point of view, the action is to just stomp the brake pedal as hard as you can when say you enter a hairpin at top speed (e.g. 320+km/h) to make the most of the high speed downforce and high speed optimized brakes, then let go of the brake while gently increasing throttle as speed drops, finally entering a corner with just a bit of brake pressure (trail braking) and just enough throttle to get the balance and line right. It's in many ways completely alien to non downforce dominant braking technique.
As we all know, to get the most out of the downforce generated grip you need to set the brake force higher and more rear biased than optimal for lower speed lower downforce braking. The solution to overcoming this is a combination of reducing brake pressure and adding a bit of throttle as speed drops. This prevents excessive braking force at lower speeds and actively shifts brake bias forward when required.
Form the driver's point of view, the action is to just stomp the brake pedal as hard as you can when say you enter a hairpin at top speed (e.g. 320+km/h) to make the most of the high speed downforce and high speed optimized brakes, then let go of the brake while gently increasing throttle as speed drops, finally entering a corner with just a bit of brake pressure (trail braking) and just enough throttle to get the balance and line right. It's in many ways completely alien to non downforce dominant braking technique.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
In LFS, you can get away with all sorts of weird setups on downforce cars, with the old high nose exploit being the worse example ever. IRL, you would try to keep things as stiff as possible for platform control and aero stability while still leaving enough compliance to cope with irregularities and low speed sections that depend more on mechanical than aero grip.
Very true, especially when trying to get WR. Compared to other TBO cars it is relatively underpowered, undertorqued and more importantly, VERY poorly suited powerband. Not to mention vastly undertired compared to the unbeatable FXO (Well, no other TBO car come close to it) . More weight than the FXO AND significantly LESS tire? No wonder it eats them fast. By the looks of things, it reminds me of the 1st thread I had here (RB4 related). I remember saying that the devs tried too hard and ended up overcompensating for FWD deficits, ending up with this unbeatable FXO problem.
If the RB4 was given the FXO's tires (a much more fair comparison) things would be a LOT different.
Well, at least you get to enjoy driving all 4 wheels off.
ONLY a few degrees? Last time I checked on a CFD test on a GT Nissan Z racer with a ground effects undertray, a "small" change of 2 degrees increase in forward rake shifted center of pressure forward by as much as 5% and increased downforce by a similar amount, with significant L/D improvements as well.
Which is why I currently do not take the significantly downforce dependent cars TOO seriously. Most peopel here seem to have no real idea how far away from reality the current aero model really is. In fact, all aero forces can be described in LFS by this simple equation as far as I can tell:
F = 1/2*density of medium*Frontal Area*Cd*v^2
Was it a mixed class race? If so of course it's at the back! Production based modified race car vs. GT1s, GTRs and LMPs? What do you expect?
If it does sound like a jet turbine as you've said, then it's absolutely musical as far as I'm concerned. Few thing sound as good as an F-14D blasting off an aircraft carrier at full throttle.
And by logical deduction, it's safe to assume you hate airplanes.
Some of us like revvy, high pitched and eardrum splitting petrol engine shrieks, some like low frequencies than anything else, some like the high pitched gas turbine sounds and some even like the lumpy V8 sounds with cams too aggressive for smooth idling.
No, I'm NOT deaf. Am I the only one here with hearing good enough to hear the R10's turbo? I'm more familiar with diesel exhausts notes than many if not most here and all I can say is that high revving turbodiesels (not the 2500rpm bus engines) make wonderful exhaust notes that just say smooth, effortless drive. I wonder if people here have any familiarity with turbodiesel sounds at 3000+ to 4500rpm or even 5000rpm on some eurodiesels.
Mind showing us a clip of how it REALLY sounds and let us be the judge?
If it sounds like a 30 year old abused bus fair enough, but I've actually searched around for R10 sounds and it reminded me of the batmobile.
I enjoy the sound of a well tuned, well designed and operating engine as anyone who has serious enthusiasm about cars ,but being quieter isn't necessarily a bad thing. Let's face it, no one in their right mind (aka without self destructive tendencies) would actually enjoy any sound over 90dB. Beyond that it's just painful and will cause permanent damage.
I remember the Audi R10 being the quietest LMP car currently raced. Granted, it's not exactly quiet, but it's way better than its petrol counterparts thanks a lot to natural turbo and particulate filter sound muffling. It's claimed to sound more like a jet turbine than a normal ICE under race use (aka large throttle openings). Unless you hate airplanes, that can't be a bad thing. Remember the good old days when people dreamt of gas turbine cars? All the sounds with none of the fuel efficiency and drivability problems.
I wonder if some people here actually bother to read posts carefully. I thought I mentioned that there is good promise that F1 hybrids might not be electrically based at all. Ultralight and ultrafast spinning flywheels have just been developed to recover energy from braking. It works on the concept of 2 contra-rotating flywheels that use very strong and dense but light overall flywheels that would cancel any gyroscopic forces flywheels make.
Besides, it also bypasses a lot of braking energy to electric to chemical then back to electric and finally mechanical energy inefficiencies. Mechanical energy to mechanical energy then straight back again. I can't remember exact numbers off my head right now, but last time a checked, a single 2 second braking event produces enough extractable energy to provides more than enough power to get away with smaller and lighter ICE engines.
Let's do a littel simple analyisis. Since:
KE = 1/2*m*v^2
KE(300km/h) = 1/2*600*(300/3.6)^2 = 208.33KJ
KE(120km/h) = 1/2*600*(120/3.6)^2 = 33.33kJ
Kinetic energy lost = 1750kJ
Assuming 70% conversion efficiency (a bit conservative for the kind of flywheel system they've proposed to use in F-1), that's still 1225kJ. Then assume 70% efficiency from flywheel to wheel, that's 857.5kJ. Enough for a 5 second burst of 171.5kW or 229.9hp! Remember that I used conservative estimates of efficiency. So much for the "there's not enough energy to recover" excuse. Not to mention the amount of front brake wear you'll save from this. And do remember most circuits have more than ONE heavy braking area...
BTW, how would ultralight flywheels be of any effectiveness to store mechanical energy? It's simple actually:
E = 1/2*I*w^2
Basically moment of inertia multiplied by square of rotational velocity divided by 2. It is obvious that higher rpm is a better choice then more mass. BTW, inertia increases by the square of radius too, so th ideal flywheel would be somewhat like a ring with all its mass centered at this ring. Just imagine a superdense and super-strong ring rotating at 66,000rpm...
Lets say if battery power does develop. Of course, batteries still have energy density issues both from volumic and massive point of view, but electrical storage is something that is still relatively infantile compared to other forms of energy storage. Just recently, Lithium polymer batteries have just set new standards and battery energy density. Electric cars are in a sense like what diesels were before it was given the kind of development that the latest diesels have, plenty of untapped and WASTED potential. If nanotechnology is allowed to develop and enhance electrical storage, other forms of energy could soon start to look like flintstone technology.
As for battery weight. As if internal combustion engines don't weigh in the triple digits of kilos! As if fuel doesn't take up a very significant of an F-1 car's total weight.
Point? If technology isn't allow to develop productively we will forever be condemned to old an obsolete technology along with all the inefficiencies and environmental havoc and pointless misery that goes along with it. If petrol and diesel weren't allowed to supersede steam engines and horses, we would still be living in atmospheres of choking soot and streets of horse manure to this day. And if petrol engines of today aren't allowed to be superseded by alternative forms of power, we will forever be condemned to our petroleum dependency and oil politics.
Though I don't agree with all the proposed F-1 changes (like the boost button aka p2p or more like p2ku(push to keep up)), they are absolutely right that F-1 needs a radical overhaul. F-1 in it's current state is just a sorry excuse of an existence to be absolutely blunt. It will never be the low-browed banger stupidity that so many under-evolved humans of the same type enjoy, yet it's not allowed to become as much of a technological tour de force as it should. Basically, good at NOTHING (other than making a bunch of overprivileged jerks extremely rich whilst giving nothing terribly constructive back to the world that allowed its existence). F-1 used to provide fertile ground for making new millionaires , but now it's become nothing more than a financial and technological blackhole for most as it simply consumes exponentially more resources to optimize obsolete and practically irrelevant over-restricted technology (mostly).
For F-1 to survive and thrive in the future, it must relieve itself of the past and embrace the future. And no one in their right mind here can say that F-1 should remain as we currently know it. There are annoying an prissy little ninnies and twits that will oppose all attempts to improve something that leads alot to be desired in many areas, but hopefully more technically interesting F-1 cars will attract a newer, more intelligent and ultimately more productive crowd than those bunch of twits. Trust me, there are a LOT of potential fans that F-1 as we know it today completely fails to attract.
Besides, it also bypasses a lot of braking energy to electric to chemical then back to electric and finally mechanical energy inefficiencies. Mechanical energy to mechanical energy then straight back again. I can't remember exact numbers off my head right now, but last time a checked, a single 2 second braking event produces enough extractable energy to provides more than enough power to get away with smaller and lighter ICE engines.
Let's do a littel simple analyisis. Since:
KE = 1/2*m*v^2
KE(300km/h) = 1/2*600*(300/3.6)^2 = 208.33KJ
KE(120km/h) = 1/2*600*(120/3.6)^2 = 33.33kJ
Kinetic energy lost = 1750kJ
Assuming 70% conversion efficiency (a bit conservative for the kind of flywheel system they've proposed to use in F-1), that's still 1225kJ. Then assume 70% efficiency from flywheel to wheel, that's 857.5kJ. Enough for a 5 second burst of 171.5kW or 229.9hp! Remember that I used conservative estimates of efficiency. So much for the "there's not enough energy to recover" excuse. Not to mention the amount of front brake wear you'll save from this. And do remember most circuits have more than ONE heavy braking area...
BTW, how would ultralight flywheels be of any effectiveness to store mechanical energy? It's simple actually:
E = 1/2*I*w^2
Basically moment of inertia multiplied by square of rotational velocity divided by 2. It is obvious that higher rpm is a better choice then more mass. BTW, inertia increases by the square of radius too, so th ideal flywheel would be somewhat like a ring with all its mass centered at this ring. Just imagine a superdense and super-strong ring rotating at 66,000rpm...
Lets say if battery power does develop. Of course, batteries still have energy density issues both from volumic and massive point of view, but electrical storage is something that is still relatively infantile compared to other forms of energy storage. Just recently, Lithium polymer batteries have just set new standards and battery energy density. Electric cars are in a sense like what diesels were before it was given the kind of development that the latest diesels have, plenty of untapped and WASTED potential. If nanotechnology is allowed to develop and enhance electrical storage, other forms of energy could soon start to look like flintstone technology.
As for battery weight. As if internal combustion engines don't weigh in the triple digits of kilos! As if fuel doesn't take up a very significant of an F-1 car's total weight.
Point? If technology isn't allow to develop productively we will forever be condemned to old an obsolete technology along with all the inefficiencies and environmental havoc and pointless misery that goes along with it. If petrol and diesel weren't allowed to supersede steam engines and horses, we would still be living in atmospheres of choking soot and streets of horse manure to this day. And if petrol engines of today aren't allowed to be superseded by alternative forms of power, we will forever be condemned to our petroleum dependency and oil politics.
Though I don't agree with all the proposed F-1 changes (like the boost button aka p2p or more like p2ku(push to keep up)), they are absolutely right that F-1 needs a radical overhaul. F-1 in it's current state is just a sorry excuse of an existence to be absolutely blunt. It will never be the low-browed banger stupidity that so many under-evolved humans of the same type enjoy, yet it's not allowed to become as much of a technological tour de force as it should. Basically, good at NOTHING (other than making a bunch of overprivileged jerks extremely rich whilst giving nothing terribly constructive back to the world that allowed its existence). F-1 used to provide fertile ground for making new millionaires , but now it's become nothing more than a financial and technological blackhole for most as it simply consumes exponentially more resources to optimize obsolete and practically irrelevant over-restricted technology (mostly).
For F-1 to survive and thrive in the future, it must relieve itself of the past and embrace the future. And no one in their right mind here can say that F-1 should remain as we currently know it. There are annoying an prissy little ninnies and twits that will oppose all attempts to improve something that leads alot to be desired in many areas, but hopefully more technically interesting F-1 cars will attract a newer, more intelligent and ultimately more productive crowd than those bunch of twits. Trust me, there are a LOT of potential fans that F-1 as we know it today completely fails to attract.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
From the engineering point of view the slip angle difference definition is generally accepted. Another way to think of under/oversteer is to take the extreme limit view. If the car would drift out rear end first, it's oversteer and vice-versa.
For a driver, understeer is just a matter of the car not achieving the yaw rate and tightness of line he/she desires and vice-versa.
For a driver, understeer is just a matter of the car not achieving the yaw rate and tightness of line he/she desires and vice-versa.
Very true. In sims, you take risks you won't even dream of IRL on the track simply because of the "infinite risk compensation factor" aka no fear of injury and death leading to cavalier attitudes to safety.
In LFS, if you messed up your overtaking attempt and land in the gravel/wall, there's always the reset button. IRL it could be the last thing you'll ever see.
In fact, it is well known that as racing gets safer on the track these days, the general level of risk aversion has fallen significantly among drivers.
True, aggressive driving is necessary to compensate for the unbeatable FXO syndrome somewhat. If well setup and driven, it should wear all 4 tires nice and evenly.
Oh, the silliness that genuine car enthusiasts get for upgrading their cars, even when the mod is perfectly logical and generates very significant increase in performance. Lack of of fade under hard use is always a good thing. Improved pedal feel and better wear thanks to quality stainless steel brake lines and 4-6pot calipers are a great bonus. The ability to fill in those 18 inch wheels shod with sticky 235/40/18 tires is just a bonus in addition to the improved overall braking performance.
RWD cars with decent power are supposed to eat rear tires and FWD are suppose to eat fronts fast. With 4WD, it depends on torque bias and and overall balance. With power shared among 4 wheels, how could it magically eat tires faster? Which tire is better off, one transmitting half of 240+hp or one transmitting a quarter of it? As power goes up, 4WD actually increases tire change intervals by overloading tires less under power.
4WD does NOT magically eat tires faster than other drivetrains. It's suppoesed to save tires and extend tire change intervals if well set up and driven to provide even wear. Unless of course yo resort to 4 wheel drifts.
As far as I'm concerned, suspension steering and tire settings, etc should remain, though if things go my way all the track driven road cars in LFS would have homologated ratios and preset gearsets to choose from. And final drive would be limited to a few choices that the car(s) in question could use properly.
Of course, 0.001 gear increment adjustment isn't terribly realistic, but that simply not the most pressing physics issue now. There are aero, suspension geometry (need 3D suspension with 3D motion and of course bump steer), etc that are much more pressing and would affect LFS racing much more. And of course brake wear and temps, fade, etc.
As for brakes, brake bias should remain as it's not too terribly hard to get an aftermarket supplier to fit adjustable bias. Though the ability to adjust brake force down to 1 newton is OTT. We should get a choice of pads, say sticky, good when cold, quick warming and sticky but short lived pads for sprints. Then we should get pads that give less peak friction and poorer cold performance but more consistent and powerful once warmed up, lasting long and well under prolonged and severe braking. And also a compound or 2 in between.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
1. Last time I checked rollcages are NOT allowed in Australia (land of silly speed limits applied to all the wrong places to maximize revenue, NOT safety). Germany is a different story, relative to pretty much everyone else it's car heaven.
2. Never said anything about disagreeing with PROPER implementation brake fade and wear. Any important physics improvements from aero to turbo modelling to Torsen differentials gets my vote.
3. No it is NOT true that roll cages are absolutely necessary just to legally drive on racing circuits. Of course they are mandatory in full blown races with cars and drivers competing seriously with each other. There are many roadable cars that are quite commonly run on open track days where poeple like members of car clubs are allowed to run free on the track at much higher pace then draconian (and often made up with moneymaking, not safety in mind) speed limits would allow. People (especially the more skilled ones) do go fast, though still below full race pace. Cars like the Lotus Elise come with no roll cages and are still used for the track. Well, they are actually more track car than road car, with no luggage space, tiny cockpit and suspension that telegraphs every little undulation to you. As for brake wear and fade, try the CCBs (Carbon Ceramic Brakes) from Porsche 997 turbo and Ferrari 430. And please, don't try to track your BMW with OEM pads again. Sheer wastage and reduces both fun and safety. Try these:
http://www.tirerack.com/brakes ... l=HP+Plus+Race+brake+pads
WAY better for track use, if you don't mind a bit of noise and dust.
4. When was the last time you got cars in say the TBO class with OEM 2 way adjustable dampers? So it's obvious they are TRACK cars, just not race cars.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
Mitsubishi Colt 1.5L turbo kill list:
VW beetle(new beetle) - check!
Mini Cooper - check!
VW Polo GTi - check!
The list goes on...
The no ALMOST prep point is quite true for the slowest car in LFS aka the painfully slow mini lookalike. But check the more decent cars like RB4, XRT, FXO, LXs, FZ50 and RA and they aren't exactly stock. With a wide range of springs, ARBs and adjustable dampers, they are very track prepared cars, with money well spent to make sure the perform well on the track and remain usable on the street. Why would one spend thousands on suspension and extrem performance road tires and somehow magically neglect to upgrade at least the brake pads to suit? If I were to use my road car on the track I definitely won't miss out on a set of Brembos/AP Racing brakes and of course, adjustable brake bias.
If there is one important factor that sets the apart from full blown race cars is the lack of visible rollcages. Rollcages are illegal for road use, but some track ready cars (e.g. Porsche GT2 996) come with integral chrome molybdenum rollcages that are so well hidden by internal trim they could easily pass as legal and counstable plodd wouldn't ever know if he didn't ask or try to check it out carefully. BTW, if I were to track my road car I definitely won't miss out on chassis stiffening too. Strategically placed braces make all the difference with minimal weight penalty.
The road cars in LFS should be considered track prepared cars, NOT stock OEM cars. It's good that LFS allows all this freedom of adjustment as it allows us to better explore, enjoy and discover the limits of LFS's physics engine. If there is one good way to cover for poor physics is to simply use the setup to fudge things until the right feel is acquired. That's why from us sim racers' point of views, less setup choices would be all loss and no gain. Of course, this doesn't mean that non-realistic adjustablility should be allowed, but since ARBs, springs and adjustable (4-way or even frequency sensitive) dampers are so widely used today, it's simply absurd to disallow what someone could achieve with his OEM car with a few well chosen aftermarket modifications.
All very true except the part about kerb hopping. IRL, F1 cars survive an entire race distance of kerb hopping on the chicanes and no, their suspension links don't die. I do agree, however, for some kerbs (taller, sharper and nastier), it should result in snapped wishbones, especially when hit at silly speeds.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG