Well, did I mention that it won't be conventional 4WD?

Drivetrain efficiency? Let's see, most braking energy is generated at the FRONT tires, so why not put the energy recovery device at the front and recover the energy as efficiently as possible? And wouldn't be better to use that recovered energy to power the front wheels as well to use that residual tractive capability at the front then to smoke the rear tires again? And if F-1 cars weren't so traction limited, then why all this fuss with TC? If they REALLY have THAT much traction then no one would bother because TC would actually SLOW YOU DOWN and WASTE tires! In the early days of TC people thought TC would actually save tires. Turns out that the opposite is true, as drivers could consistently make the most of all the grip the driven tires have. Can a human match or beat TC over a lap with one's right foot? Possibly. But what about 1.5 hours of race distance? In 50+ Celsius, backbreaking, vision blurring vibration and bone-breaking g-forces and blood sloshing around your body like a fuel sloshing around in your fuel tank?

And when was the last time the ultimate track performance of a current F-1 car was limited by moment of inertia? The only situation where that actually has some bearing is with multiple and/or connected and/or twisty and extremely technical corners (e.g. mountain passes, TIGHT chicanes). No surprise why those Mid-engined 4WD Group B monsters were so terrifyingly fast, eh? With todays tracks getting more and more F-1 friendly, chicanes become less and less necessary and corners would be nice and simple. Chicanes are more of a slowdown device for older and supposedly faster F-1 circuits than anything else. Remember that Michelin tire fiasco at Indy? Michelin says: "PLEASE INSTALL CHICANE!" Bridgestone said: "Ah, whatever..."

4WD isn't the only way to maximize power to the ground. E-diffs would have been as perfect as RWD could get, but for some reason the "Ferrari International Aid" banned Ferrari's beautiful e-diff. Oh sweet irony...

And even if 4WD was done conventionally, I don't see how it should take up the full 80kg. In such an application, all you need is something that shifts say 5-30% power to the front via compact and lightweight electronic clutch to better use the power. Basically, you don't need super strong front driveshafts and differentials that could take even half the engine power.

Besides, if downforce levels are forced to drop, 4WD's advantages just get too obvious to ignore. As someone here already mentioned, SS with 4WD and limited (i.e. less than crazy F-1 levels) of downforce on twisty mountain course == unbeatable monster.

Quote from ajp71 :

An F1 car isn't that traction limited, I think you'd find the weight and inefficiency would make 4WD a waste of space in current F1 cars in single seaters that are severely traction limited (eg. hillclimb cars) it could be a massive advantage, in fact the Hepworth special (a 4WD F5000 style hillclimb car) is still seriously quick up Shelsley today seeing it just launch off the line with virtually no wheelspin is quite a sight.0

What I'm trying to say that F-1 should have been very free to new drivetrain technology that better puts power to the ground. And no one can deny that F-1 cars HAD launch control because honestly, they have next to no traction compared to their power output when aerodynamic downforce isn't massive.

The secret to more overtaking has always been to reduce reliance on downforce generating devices that cause huge turbulently wakes behind the car and definitely NOT this stupid P2P (more like P2Catchup) hare-brained excuse. When mechanical grip and traction takes more precedence over the car's overall handling and performance, then drivetrain technologies will get their chance to shine.

BTW, since they are going to make hybrids that store kinetic energy from braking via flywheel based energy storage, might as well let that stored energy drive the front wheels too and provide better corner exits. This kills many birds with 1 stone as it frees up rear packaging and makes good use of the space up front. Aids mass balance too.

If 4WD was implemented conventionally (i.e. via 3 diffs), then the only real problem now is packaging, but if chassis design was relatively free that can be overcome. The weight argument doesn't really hold since todays cars can already run 80kg underweight if they were allowed to. So, a bunch of titanium alloy/carbon fiber/carbon nanotube driveshafts and components are supposed to weigh MORE than 80kg in this day and age?

Last edited by Jamexing, Sat 19 May 2007, 07:58.

Quote from 5th Earth :

Hmm... 4wd, 2.2 v6 turbo at 10k rpm...

Is it just me, or does this sound exactly like a Group B rally car?

What's wrong with a group B rallycar?

Think about it this way . Which is more energy efficient:

1. Sending 800hp through the rear wheels only in a hopeless attempt to turn power into forward acceleration.

2. All else very similar, but sending 1/3 of the power to the front wheels too so the car could actually use a major portion of that power.

As far as I'm concerned, TC is better off banned since it is a band aid solution to a very fundamental physical problem. It is basically a software solution to a hardware issue. Remember the MB A class? That horrible thing never stood a chance to handle safely since it's suspension calibrations were hopelessly unsuited to do so. So, they used a software solution (aka TC and SC) to "fix" it.

But the fact remains that the cars are still hopelessly flawed and fundamentally unsafe by mechanical design.

F-1 should of course be the pinnacle of motorsport technology and must remain that way to deserve such a title. And it's about time it gets more relevant to real world automotive technology, otherwise it will go the way of the dodo OR be as acceptable as heroin abuse. If only some people here actually think about things very deeply before they say that F-1 should remain the technological dinosaur or an even lower stage of evolution then it currently is. There are of course genuine environmentalists (like me) that genuinely care about the environment both for human prosperity and the wild, since the intricate balance of life is essential for the well being of all on this planet. Then there are of course the greenies so caught up in their insanity that they'll rather have all humans dead then slaughter a cow to feed a poor starving village.

It seems that when many humans get behind the wheel, their stupidity knows no bounds as their brains switch off.

The "magic spring" is just the 3rd spring that links both sides of the rear suspension together. It's used for anything from heave control to pro-roll, which is actually great for and F-1 car as those things are always struggling for traction when speed drops below that of which is necessary to generate adequate downforce and thus grip to stick the rear tires to the ground.

As is obvious and easily observed, the front suspension is usually stiff to provide platform control, maximize steering response, etc whilst the pro-roll would help to even out the loads on both rear contact patches. Since all tires are load sensitive, more even loading leads to more grip which can be achieved without negatives such as poor camber control and excessive roll.

The lack of the 3rd spring does adversely affect realism as far as simulation of the BF1 is concerned, since it affects its ability to put power to the ground. But let's face it, LFS physics is still very much incomplete, with problems ranging from turbo modelling to vastly oversimplified and sometimes just plain unbelievable aero. At least the now properly simulated clutch diff with both dynamic AND static locking makes cars behave much more realistically in LFS. I just hope the devs are working on some important physics improvement projects behind the scenes...

Careful guys, big brother's watching INTENTLY...

Last time I checked, they regard ALL humans as possible threats to national security.

Quote from tailing :

"and I barely drive the LX6 because it's so front heavy already."

LX6 = front heavy?

Last time I checked, that car had more weight at the back then at the front, so how could that be?

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

When has anyone shot at you for mentioning flaws in turbocharger modelling?

I started a thread on it ages ago and it went quite well. (search for a thread called "boost modelling questions")

And I really seriously doubt that "they've struggled this long" rubbish. It's simply not at the top of the priority list, and hasn't been to our knowledge for ages. I'd be dissappointed if it wasn't addressed before S2 final, but who knows. Scawen has directly said that he knows the boost modeling has issues, so it's not like he doesn't know - he just has chosen to deal with other things.

Yes, I DID get shot down quite a lot for mentioning about turbo engine behavior in LFS IN THE PAST, not in this thread. And some guys here developed a knack for picking on me for this, but they were people who obviously didn't know much and had much experience with RL turbo cars. Anyway, enough of the past and on to the present topic...

Don't get me wrong, I respect the devs (believe it or not) and I'm sure they could get the turbo boost and powerbands working properly if they spent a reasonable amount of time on the physics modeling, implementation and testing it. If this is just something trivial like say "want more bling in the graphics" or "want fancier user inteface" I wouldn't even bother.

But LFS is a SIMULATOR and physics make the simulator. The current problems such as lack of antidive/squat and dynamic toe (lack of 3d suspension geometry) aren't so terrible problem yet since the 2D suspensions still manage to behave as 2D suspensions are supposed to behave. But this long neglected turbo modeling problem IS an obvious physics flaw that stares one in the face whenever one drives a turbo car in LFS.

And no one in their right mind can deny that it's seriously affecting racing in LFS, especially whenever TBOs are concerned. I applaud the devs for adding a ballast and air restrictor system to help balance things out, but it's very much a band aid solution for now and still completely neglects the underlying physics problem. Ballast and air intake restriction are good for fine tuning performance equivalence but CAN NOT be used to eliminate fundamental physics flaws. And to be absolutely blunt the adjustment range for intake restriction is just ridiculous. Why on earth would anyone want to drive a 103hp RB4/XRT? Those thing don't even move! Even when one pushes the throttle past the firewall!

Oh, let's see, we've got 80kph...86....91...95...98...100kph!!!!!

Great fun if you're a retired landspeed record breaker.

Last edited by Jamexing, Sun 13 May 2007, 06:56.

Quote from Crash Dummy :

There is a post I agree with 100%.
It seems there is only a few of us who actually care about this issue. I stopped complaining about it ages after getting shot down for the theory being wrong and that if there was a problem it wasn't big enough to warrant the kind of recoding needed to fix such a minor issue.

So another one for the record.
The turbo modeling is crap. It needs to be fixed. It IS greatly improved from how it once was like back in the 0.04 days I think just before we moved onto 0.1 alpha where the turbo model was revised. I remember back in the day the turbo would slowly slowly boost up and would take up to 30 seconds to reach full boost. Then it was fixed and remains the way it is today but still. If I bought a 250hp road car that took till 5000rpm to come on full boost I would tell the manufacturer to shove it up their bum.
Just as an example. Mitsubishi Galant VR4. 1989 model with the 2 litre 4G63. These build strong boost from 2000rpm and even through the first two gears you'll be on full boost by 3000rpm. That's a damn near perfect example of how the RB4 should be. If you are to fit the turbocharger from the later Lancer Evolution III which has a much larger compressor wheel and housing then the VR4 had it becomes a little laggier and boosts later but boost starts coming on at 2500 and your on full boost and easily peak torque by 3500rpm - 4000rpm.

Yes, this problem of LFS is so obvious yet so neglected, and I was also shot at quite a lot for mentioning a very important and obvious behavioral flaw. Seems like some sort of anti-turbo agenda...

Anyway, if they've struggled to model 2L turbo engines THIS long then why don't they just copy the data off RL engines? Better off with a good lookup table then trying to model turbo boost and powerbands by some equation that would give horrible results. IRL engineering, many things are so complex that there's no way to model them via equations without some horrifying simplifications, so what we CAN do is log lots of data and analyze things numerically. In fact, many equations used to model RL physical objects/processes are actually unsolvable analytically and can only be done numerically.

Speed in itself can't hurt you. In fact, there are many circumstance that lack of speed can be extremely dangerous and possibly fatal. For instance, lack of airpseed over an airplane's wings casues a deadly condition known as "stall".

What really kills is the sudden lack of speed, i.e:

Force = mass x rate of change of momentum

F = (m*dv/dt) + (v*dm/dt)

One can build massive bridges and even move mountains, but never defy the laws of physics.

FYI, auto diff locks are known as detroit lockers. Their default operating mode is as a locked diff. When one wheel is forced to turn faster on a sticky surface like tarmac, the faster outside wheel is allowed to disengage and freewheel whilst all power is sent to the inside wheel. But if one applies torque to the detroit locker again (e.g. flooring the throttle) it'll return to its normal locked diff mode of operation after about 15 degrees of wheelslip.

Detroit lockers are somewhat strange to those not used to them as they change the cars behavior from super tight and stable to absolutely loose whilst cornering. Turn in will feel tight, but as the vehicle starts to turn and the diff unlocks, there's a relatively sudden increase in yaw rate. But if one gets used to them, they do in a sense provide the ultimate performance as they have the traction of a locked diff without the mid corner speed penalties.

The RB4. Let's just say the TBO class hasn't got a chance to race fairly on tarmac until the turbo modeling and powerband issues are fixed. When was the last time you needed 5000rpm or more to get full boost from your 250hp 2.0L turbo engine? Power to weight ratio equality won't solve the issue, since each drivetrain thrives on different types of engine torque output. The FXO actually benefits from the peakiness and hopeless midrange, as it helps to alleviate front tire wear issues. The XRT needs smooth and consistent torque at midrange (4000rpm to 5500rpm) and excellent high rpm power (5000rpm to 7500rpm) to do its best and be as fun to drive as it should. The RB4 has the edge on traction and needs a strong midrange (3500rpm to 5500rpm) and very good high rpm (5500rpm to 7500rpm) power to really shine.

So in the end, it's not a simple matter of matching power to weight ratios. It's about giving the right kind of power curve for each car.

Last edited by Jamexing, Sat 12 May 2007, 06:53.

Speaking of stupidity, just 2 weeks ago some asian kid showed up to me whilst I was discussing about cars with someone else just for good clean fun. He was one of those FnF/NFS:U types that annoy me with his remarkable insistance that I was a complete idiot who knows nothing about cars or maximizing their potential. He pointed me to a nearby 2 lane 90 degree junction and insisted he could take it at 150km/h in his 3.0L V6 Corolla. Needless to say I had better things to do waste my time explaining the limitations posed by the amount of centrifugal force a tire could generate and the fact that cars just can't exceed their tire's grip. I just ignored him and next thing I knew he was gone for his attention seeking antics were an exercise in futility.

These are the kind of idiots that put all of us at unnecessary risk. Massive ego and blatant stupidity, coupled with absolute disregard for the laws of physics all add up to a dangerous mix. Just hope he doesn't get me or anyone other innocents trouble with his stupidity.


If they REALLY wanted a shock campaign, they should post a video of a RL crash at high speed, with all the mangled steel and bodies in FULL VIEW. NO CENSORSHIP! Hide no pain, agony, blood, gore and suffering. I'm so disgusted by the fact that modern society tries so hard to hide truth and reality from people. The real problem with people these days is that they so shielded from the consequences of their actions that they've develop no comprehension of cause and effect.

Actually, the race cars have less steering lock because of either packaging constraints (e.g. insufficient wheel well space) and in normal racing conditions they don't really need much lock.

Quote from KeiichiRX7 :

because if MAKES you think about the weight transfer. theres a reason that the first thing you learn to drift at the Skip Barber drift school is a dodge dakota

Excellent point. To understand weight transfer and master this technique, the best cars to learn with are, believe it or not, SUVs. Higher center of gravity amplifies weight transfer and shows the effects of every driver input more clearly than a low and wide car e.g. Lamborghini can. They amplify your errors too, so you either learn your lesson or pay the price again and again (unless you've somehow manage to flip the vehicle).

BTW, Landrover defenders and Toyota 75 series Landcruisers tend to provide plenty of warning before they actually tip. They can take about 30 degrees if properly loaded (i.e. NOT having all the heavy items on the roof) before they actually tip over. That tip-toey feeling is something one can ever forget.

In case you're all wondering, the term "ricer" was originally meant to refer to any asian guy who had enough love and passion for his car to modify it in a constructive manner and bring it to its full potential. Something like reprogramming/changing a Lancer Evolution XI's ECU coupled with a 3 inch exhasust system to severely reduce backpressure whilst increasing power, torque, reliability, efficiency and drivability. Or installing well specified springs and adjsutable dampers via a height adjustable coilover system. It was meant to be a compliment to any asian guy who loves cars.

Unfortunately, it's meaning has now been changed to a derogatory/insulting manner to suit the twisted desires who indulge in racial slurs and racism in general. Silly movies like FnF don't help either, having shown only the dark side of car culture that's so overglorified that genuine asian car enthusiasts become part of this overgeneralization. Silly bodykits that make no real sense such as body cladding along the arches that don't allow seriously larger wheels and tires or triple spoilers on the boot with questionable aero don't make any sense to the true enthusiast. Neither do Honda civics lowered 3 inches (no bump travel left) and equiped with 18 inch wheels shod with rubber bands.

BTW, the RX-7 IS a car of great potential, with so many fine traits such as a lightweight engine and excellent mass location and balance (virtually 50/50) due to its lightweight and compact rotary engine. It's not really an F/R car, it is in fact a MF(Mid Front)/R car. The agility derived from its sheer lack of inertia can never be replicated with the XFs.

We all know how horribly troublesome it will be to actaully put the real RX-7 in LFS, but aren't the XFs already very close if not exact copies of the RL Mitsubishi Starion? Of course, some major details are still wrong (thanks to the persistant turbo modelling issues), but all the other significant details from mass destribution to suspension type and behavior are remarkably close to the real thing. The XFs aren't called Starions of course, and this highlights my plan for the RX-7 suggestion.

Why not just add an RX-7 FC or FD like car somewhere down the line in LFS's long development? Of course, DON'T call it Mazda RX-7, maybe some name like MFRR (mid front engined rwd). Use the real things as templates to start with.

BTW, the RL OEM twin-turbo RX-7 FD wasn't terribly impressive. Power was decent (around 250hp) and torque was quite decent with a pretty acceptable midrange. The problem was its twin sequential turbo system. Fiendishly complex and prone to electrical problems, it still resulted in hole in the powerband somewhere along the rev range which I can't remember for now. Acceleration numbers weren't terribly impressive, at around 6.6 seconds to 60mph. Handling was amazingly good even with OEM wheels and tires, but the suspension was so amazingly stiff (especially on the sportiest models) that you'll need kidney belts to survive the pothole ridden streets so prevalent in RL unscathed. Oil consumption of a quart every 3000 miles was perfectly normal. No to mention the need for frequent apex seal replacements.

Last edited by Jamexing, Thu 10 May 2007, 07:01.

Quote from Becky Rose :

Something to do with a bactaeria that has a tail, apparently. The Discovery Institute (not in any way veiled Christian science organisation trying to subvert any scientific understanding which questions a tale from the bible) claim that it could not have evolved because the tail does not work with any one of it's 50 odd components removed. Therefor it must have been 'intelligently designed'.

This is because the tail was an adaption of an existing organ for an entirely different purpose - just dont tell them that because it'd be a pointless exercise in futility.

Militant religious fundamentalists have always been a problem, but nobody gave them a big red button to push before - their growing influence and power in America is something that I personally find uncomfortable to witness, and the growing unrest in the world as a result of two groups of fundamentalists both trying to prove they have the will of God by annihilating the other is also a cause for concern.

Worse is that both sides both believe in and actively engage in indoctrination of the young in order to replace their losses on the frontlines. Pretty soon we'll have way too many car bombers on both sides that they're going to start looking for new targets.

oh btw if any American school kids reach this you might want to Google Darwin whilst it is still possible to do so in your country. I doubt it'll be too many more years before any search of Darwin turns up google results giving nothing but incorrect propaganda.

Darwin is not a 'theory'. It's part of a bigger picture that is not yet fully unveiled. For the rest of the picture Google Steven Hawkins and 'Geneva Particle Accelerator'.

Wow, the voices of reason and intellect are the some of the only glimmers of hope left in this world of dogmatic fanaticism and insanity. Let's hope that not too many of our descendants would be sacrificed to fulfill the twisted agendas of the few socioeconomic and political elites.

Last edited by Jamexing, Wed 9 May 2007, 15:04.

F - Fantastically
I - Idiotic
A - Association

Well, with so many manufacturers gone, what's the point? Even good old rally fanatic Mitsubishi aka winner of 4 consecutive WRC championships in the 90's (when cars were more production based aka based on Group A rules) is gone, and that in itself has sealed the future of the WRC into an exponential decline. Next thing we know is they'll be adding NOS buttons to WRC cars...

Mainstream? Next thing we know is that WRC will become just another fashion statement with a useful life as long as NFS:Underground in my hands (Under 10 minutes AFTER winning 2 races AND figuring out all shortcuts in 2-3 laps for each race. Just doing a favour for someone who wanted quick "cash".).

Last edited by Jamexing, Tue 8 May 2007, 10:52.

Quote from keithano :

"I've talked with some drag racers, and most of them are using powershifting when they're have drag-racings."

Hmmm... Must have major clutch an drivetrain sponsor(s) too...

Push to pass? Unfortunately, the FIA aka Fantastically idiotic association is currently planning to use regenerative braking to introduce this push to pass nonsense to F-1.

But in reality, P2P has proven to be counterproductive to good racing. In CART, they've discovered that is it isn't exactly "Push to Pass", more like "Push to Keep Up". End of the day, the slow teams will use up their boost just to avoid looking bad and the top teams would simply use them to keep or increase the gap between them and the slower cars. Besides, it turns racing into a sick arcade joke.

Hate it when some overpriviledged and intellectually under-endowed nincompoops make the supposed pinnacle of motorsport into one sick joke after another.

Quote from himself :

I dont think anyone ever created a car with locked central diff for racing. It wouldnt be very healthy for a gearbox i think.

Torque split on different axles is realised with different size of wheels, belonging to both axles, in the mechanism of differential.

Actually, locked center diff 4WDs were the first ever built and tested to race, though for obvious reasons they didn't do too well on sticky tarmac due to the locked center diff.

Locked diff centers should never be used unless you're off-road. That's why all real off-roaders either have part time 4WD that uses 2WD only on tarmac or have open or viscous/torsen/etc center diffs that are mechanically lockable. When wheels start getting serious differences in load front to back (e.g. steep hillclimb), locked center diffs are still the best practical choice. One could combine Torsen center LSD and brake based TC for the theoretically ultimate system, though the only car I know of that does this for now is the TC equipped Pajero.

A torsen center LSD would be great in LFS, though I would not want locked diffs in LFS unless they are unlockable in car like RL 4WDs. ACD would be ideal, though the rally pack remains neglected to this day.

Last edited by Jamexing, Sun 6 May 2007, 12:41.

Quote from ajp71 :

Yet these people chose to live next to an active RAF airfield and weren't able to complain.

Must be those Tornadoes with their cannons and missiles scaring the s#@t out of those spineless and mindless litigative types. Or was it the that "silencer operation" we've heard so much about...

"Let's close to the beach to enjoy the view of the ocean. Oh wait, we didn't know about no stinkin' seagulls by the seaside...

Oh s#@t, now we've got all this seagull NOISE and POO. It's all the fault of those stupid birds...

Wait, I know! I'll get whoever is in charge of this area to get rid of those stinking birds. If that ain't working, just call my lawyer and sue them for damages for mental and emotional distress..."

All the above sounds so familiar, eh? Wait, here's a better one:

"Some girl jumps off Brooklyn bridge, but somehow survives. She wakes up and thinks:

Hey weight, it's THEY who built the darn bridge. I should sue them for damages! It's their stinking fault for putting it there in the first place!"

It is now clear that intelligence and common sense are under the serious threat of extinction.

Quote from ajp71 :

@Jamexing - you've missed two key issues:

1) Engine mapping can be changed on the fly and is hard to detect, meaning teams can magically loose power when faced with a dyno, this is why Britcar soon abandoned the whole power/weight system.

2) Peak power isn't reliable in determining performance, a torque curve tells far more, a WRC car only has 300 bhp @ 5500 rpm after all but the massive amounts of torque in the mid range revs means a conventional 4 pot naturally aspirated engine producing 300 bhp @ 8000 rpm wouldn't stand a chance.

Yes, I'm quite aware of those issues too, though I didn't feel like posting a super long post to cover all bases I could think of at the time. With peak energy flow rates, what we need is just some sort of mechanism to effectively restrict say fuel flow of petrol/diesel based on rate of potential energy flow. This could be say a fuel valve that is absolutely mandatory, like the boost limiters on CART racers. It would be designed so that any tampering would be detected. All are free to develop their engines any engines they want, but they engines must have fuel systems designed to receive the energy flow-rate restrictor which will be mounted just before the race. The system will be a closed loop design and electronically controlled with permanent programming, so any attempt to mess with it just a short time before the race and cheating is minimal. Given that peak fuel flow rate is always restricted in race conditions and conservaton of energy applies, this could really work.

On point 2, I'm fully aware that it's powerbands that win races, and as far as I'm concerned the increase of are under the curve even when peak power is limited is a GOOD thing. This would stop the silly quests for ever higher peak power and even sillier revs. If it wasn't for the current peak rev limit, revs would go up to 24,000rpm! With con-rods stretching as much as 1mm in current engines, what's the point? Last time I checked, F-1 engines had a failure rate of about 30% in 2006. And ways to improve area under the curve whilst making the most of limited potential energy intake rate are all so relevant to road car technological goals as well. Another reason to justify the obscene amounts of money and human resources spent on something that's currently a technological dinosaur in many important ways and absolutely irrelevant to improving automotive technology.

Speeds should be allowed to be as fast as necessary to keep them at the pinnacle of racing (aka fastest open wheelers if not fastest tarmac circuit car). But, if speeds do go insane say up to 400km/h, peak energy intake rate would be reduced further. This would force engineers to seek speed via improved efficiency, not brute force and more energy expenditure.

Absolutely free tech would be a race engineer's dream (like me ), but that is a VERY dangerous. Cars would simply get so fast that they could literally crush non g-suited drivers in today's 'low tech" with shear acceleration. No current circuits would be able to keep them under manageable speeds. And as energy efficiency gets more relevant to long term well being of humankind, unlimited energy use would soon render motorsports as legally and socially acceptable as heroin abuse.

Last edited by Jamexing, Fri 4 May 2007, 15:55.

Quote from Fetzo :

you have to be pretty clumsy to do that telephone pole trick with a 4wd. in a rwd you would have spun seconds ago in a fwd you would have hit the tree 20 meters in front of the pole HEAD ON.......AND you just have to kick the brick from the throttle and you 4wd is stable again.....again, try that in a rwd.

driving a car at its limit is always difficult, but 4wd is definately the easiest choice.

Used to drive a 4wd at the limit on loose surfaces, so I'm very familiar with their on limit and past limit behavior. The car had 50/50 F/R 4wd and a weight distribution of 51/49 F/R. Still driving it today. I actually learnt to drive in RWD 1st, then FWD before getting to 4WD.

With FWD, you would sense the front end struggling, so there's plenty of warning. With RWD, you could sense the excess change of yaw rate, so there's plenty of feedback to tell you how much to push just to keep it from spinning. Provided of course that it is wisely setup to understeer mildy at the limit.

With a well balanced 4WD, when it does start to break traction, it does so 4 wheels at a time almost simultaneously, so there's relatively little warning and a narrower margin of time to respond. If it's seriously powerful (e.g. Group B monster) AND almost neutral it could kill you without warning. It'll just grip and grip and grip until it suddenly lets all 4 tires go. These traits are what made them REALLY hard to drive consistently at the absolute limit even for top rally drivers. That's why to keep powerful 4WDs easy to drive, they are deliberately set to understeer quite a bit for street use (e.g. older Subarus). Note I'm limiting my discussion to mechanical 4WDs with passive diffs only.

For the EASIEST choice to drive at the limit, choose FWDs. Plenty of warning of impending doom if you don't bother to correct for overcooking corner entry (within reason of course). Choose RWDs to master throttle control and finesse. Then choose 4WDs to drive the wheels off by using every bit of traction all tires have.

Last edited by Jamexing, Thu 3 May 2007, 13:13.

What I would propose is to limit engine power to a very well defined range say 720-750hp. Of course, power is ever variable, so what could be done is of course to keep tweaking the energy intake rate to limit power. for instance, as efficiency improves and power starts to get JUST over 750hp for the top teams given that they are tested in well specified controlled conditions, we could simply further restrict energy intake rate. This forces engineers to get more out of the potential energy available from a fuel, be it petrol, diesel, electric power pack, etc. As far as this universe is concerned, the laws of thermodynamics still apply. So does conservation of energy.

The mid range torque that the Renault had was instrumental in its launch and corner exit capabilities, allowing it to run more widely spaced gears that reduce the need to shift gears to save time whilst making the most of the torque to accelerate as quickly as possible. Then the FIA aka Fantastically Idiotic Arseholes banned their variable air intakes and they were forced to follow convention and use 7 gears like everyone else.

I'm quite aware of how Kimi drives, as do quite a few top drivers. But the RELATIVE lack of torque means it can never be steered as well and precisely on throttle as one with proper midrange could. What he does is simply use a mix of throttle and steering commands to place the car on the correct path and tweak his line ever so subtly.

Last edited by Jamexing, Thu 3 May 2007, 15:05.