I don’t like the idea of ignoring people whatever they have to say.
If it’s something against the forum rules I prefer for the unwanted posts just to be deleted so no one can see them… It doesn’t make me feel better if I am the only one who doesn’t see them.

Err this actually not so random or unknown. I can’t really imagine that if this kind of behavior was possible in real life physics, no one would have taken advantage of that.

A close friend of mine has a 93 suzuki swift GTI that is realy close engine-chassis whise to the XFG. But I still thing that I don't need to lock it's differential and remove its rear arb in order to see what happens according to LFS analogy :P not that he or any sane man would let me do such thing to his car...

Last edited by kaynd, Sun 8 Feb 2009, 3:07.

Well it’s not that hard to judge. I haven’t sheen not even one situation where you can get oversteer just by accelerating out of a corner on an FWD in real life. No matter the setup and no matter the diff. You may just get some nasty torque steer if you have silly high locking and/or outdated front suspension with unbalanced front corner weights but there is no way you will get that silly overseer while accelerating.

But again as I keep saying thread after thread.. Setup restrictions will not solve the physics flaws.

Last edited by kaynd, Sat 7 Feb 2009, 15:34.

Last edited by kaynd, Fri 6 Feb 2009, 23:01.

I am allso not referring to soft more traction and hard less traction stuff when talking about fine tuning the arbs

It might be so noticeable because everything in the car from the suspension components to the car itself is rock solid, so if you reach a sweet spot on the total balance, even the slightest ARB stiffness change makes has a significant effect.

Great way to test it. High speed slaloms.
Try to keep a steady rhythm between direction changes and observe how fast the car reacts when it starts to steer and how fast it recovers before you steer to the other direction.

I hope this makes sense.

There is no thing like secret adjustment that gives you “free” speed ffs…
It’s all about handling and mainly feel. And it is not a secret… It’s all about fiddling with the relation in stiffness between springs and anti roll bars (combined with the appropriate damping) in order to have the desirable responses from the car.
But anyway this is widely known… many racers even change the arb stiffness as the fuel load decreases and the weight distribution of the car changes… so go figure…


The hole effect is almost indescribable so I won't even bother to try and explain it because most likely I am going to mess it up.. :P It's just the reason you may feel that by adjusting some (single digit) NM in ARBS , even if this doesn't change the overall stifness distribution that much, it effects greatly the feel of the car or the willingness to turn-in or correct a line.

Quote from Zen321 :

Very true, I can't do anything but agree.

@kaynd, Keeping traction on all tires is not what every racing engineer is looking for.
As far as I remember, former rally/asphalt rally driver Jean Ragnotti driving for Renault at that time was extensively using a turn-in technique in which the inside rear was sometimes 10cms off the ground. This is what made him famous, and yet he was really fast (not only chav driving )

You have said that by yourself but I will help you understand what you are saying...

The rear inside tire was lifting because of the realy realy hard rear suspention comparing to the front. In this way he was redeusing the rear end traction / increasing the front traction. Thus having better turn in.
In LFS FWD setups you will see exactly the oposite...

Quote from Zen321 :

Actually since a couple of weeks I have found out something with the ARBs that they don't tell you about in the LFS setup guide or Bob's Smith VHPA (that is a very good tool by the way). But I won't tell it to you, setuper's secret

O yeah you think that you are the only one who have found this “secret”
The only reason no one refers to this officially is because this effect is not even remotely accurate comparing to real world physics… /me-> exaggerating here
(ok this is not so bad, it is just way to profound in LFS)

Last edited by kaynd, Fri 6 Feb 2009, 18:04.

Quote from Forbin :

I saw and understood your argument and that is why I mentioned the difference in tire width between the front and rear. The suspension must also be adjusted to compensate for this inherent understeer bias.

On the other hand I didn't pay mutch attention to what you stated there so yeah you are right for that. But this still is not an excuse for the tire physics in general

Quote from Forbin :

I haven't seen this behavior change as a result of using a locked differential on the RWD cars, although I suppose it may be possible to set up a RWD car to act like a kart, lifting the inside rear. I haven't seen it in practice, though.

This will give some nasty initial oversteer when aplying throttle because the outside tire wants to propel the hole car. Not because it has less traction. In FWD it's ok but in RWD it's going to be tough to handle.
The oposite thought (softening) works realy whell cause of the resistance caused by the locked (or high locking) diff. And that's what masks the problem so In most Rwd cars the stifness changes, produce usualy the disirable result. (softer rear = more understeer)

Quote from Forbin :

Likewise, it's not like the cars with other drivetrain types don't have differentials.

they have but in 4wd you can do whatever you whant with torque distribution so the problem there is allso not so noticeable. (only if you experiment with a great variation on suspention stifness distribution between front and rear you will notice that something is going wrong)

And on the FWD it's... well ahh whatever... exactly the oposite.
I laugh my ass off every time I get that look when I say that someone needs a bit harder ARB at the back for less oversteer while appling the throttle.

This is not going to be solved by setup restrictions.
Server side setup “rules” appropriate for cup racing would be interesting… Just that.

Last edited by kaynd, Fri 6 Feb 2009, 16:28.

It's not the same in all cars. But it is still there. Also it's not that easy as stiffening the end you want for more grip. It needs the apropriate damping settings.

For the FZR I allready said that I am talking about stifness/mass relations and not absolute values... Of cource because its so rear heavy it needs so mutch harder suspention at the back than in the front.
As for other RWD's I allready said the main reason in most Rwd cars that suspention stifness seams to do the right thing is because of the differential.

In LX6 for example it's this is not so noticeable... but still after hours of testing I have found that appart from making it not so responsife... hardening the front/softening the rear gives almost no extra traction at the rear.
Also this depends on the camber settings. For some short tracks that have usualy left or right turs, where there is beneficial to have one side of the car with positive camber. The softer end indeed has more traction because the inside tire's camber angle is almost parallel with the outside tire's angle.

Quote from Forbin :

Yes, some of the FWD cars in LFS typically use sets that are rather stiff at the front, at least for hotlapping and short races. This is allows them to lift the inside front wheel and, with a bit of throttle, use the outside front to pull the front of the car around, helping the car turn. A kart uses much the same principle in the rear. Note that this is very, VERY hard on the front tires.

Yes yes I allso know that. Thats exactly what I am talking about. In a car (not a cart) only the outside tire sould not be able to produce as mutch grip as two more equaly loaded tires.
(On carts the tires have to cope with much less load comparing with cars, talking about contact patch/mass and there is nothing else than a locked diff at the rear so you really can’t do anything else to make it turn other than lift the inside rear wheel.)

have you ever tried to make an FWD setup In LFS using some oversteer in the springs for a change? eg stiffness distribution 40% front 60% rear... using the appropriate diff of course ...
I have tried realy hard to make a setup like that... I actualy made an FXO setup that had great turn in and mid corner speed... but it was rubish on conren exits. Yes according to LFS's tire physics its way better to use only one heavyly loaded wheel.

Of course it increases tire wear... and thank God at least this works normally..


Anyway I am not making that out of my head. I face it every time I have to make a new setup for my team.

Last edited by kaynd, Fri 6 Feb 2009, 15:50. Reason : My English suck... unless I spend half an hour to correct the mistakes.. it's almost nonsense.

Quote from Jonesy_ :

I'm just wondering what is actually that wrong with the setups, that makes them so unrealistic as some ppl here say.

I'd like to see one of these unrealistic with physics flaws taken advantage from setups everyone seems to be on.

I mean, I'm not mechanic, and barely understand the basics of making a setup, so I'm just asking what is so wrong with the 'fast sets'?

Actually the whole setup philosophy in LFS is almost opposite to what is needed in real life.

In LFS it’s perfectly ok for a fast setup to load as match as possible the outside tire of the end you want more traction, not giving a damn about the inside tire.
IRL you want to keep the tires at the end you want more traction, as equally loaded as possible…

That’s why fast FZR setups are set up mostly with basic overseer from the suspension stiffness. I am not talking about obvious spring and ARB stiffness values but for relative stiffness/mass values.
And that’s why All FWD car setups are set always with a lot higher overall suspension stiffness at the front comparing to the back. Again talking about stiffness/mass relations and not actual numbers.
The only think that makes some times RWD cars more stable by softening the rear suspension, is the way power gets delivered... because that way some of the engine's power is transferred to the ground thought the inside tire by the diff and in that way you get some initial safe-understeer while increasing the throttle. Without that meaning that the back end has more traction than the front cause of the softer suspention, as it sould be.

But guess what… no setup resstriction is going to solve that problem... this is caused by inaccurate tire physics.
No matter the restrictions on available settings… the same “unrealistic” setups will continue to exist unless something is done to the tire physics.

Last edited by kaynd, Fri 6 Feb 2009, 13:30. Reason : I have messed up the syntax on the last part.

Flexibility in setup options is one of the main things that got me into LFS. Removing them entirely from the sim is like taking half of the fun out for me.

Unrealistic setups are made due to current tire model flaws. I have already referred to this many times. FWD cars in LFS reeealy suck for this reason.

I also think that server side setup restriction is the way to go for all cars and classes.
As I have already said in another similar thread. Event organizers are the ones who restrict the amount of changes you can do to the car you are racing.

If this is your team, or the team leader-s handed to you the management of the team members and info displayed at LFSW, you should have a small edit link right next to the team name at the teams list in lfsw.
klick it and you will find out what you have to do.

Last edited by kaynd, Mon 2 Feb 2009, 21:20.

Quote from Stang70Fastback :

Because the 6800GT is actually faster than the 8600GTs in some regards, or so I've heard.

Don't even think about it... the 8600GT is way faster than the 6800GT... in some cases a single 8600GT outperforms 2x6800GT in SLI

You can reduce mouse sensitivity from the control panel of your OS.

I like that atmospheric environment you try to capture and music fits nicely for me.
It’s a pity that LFS does not support day-night transition.

Well not having much experience with these kind of programs, but some years ago I played with a trial of a program that was really easy in making nice looking 3D text and small symbols.
Have a look at the trial of ulead cool3D. http://www.ulead.com/c3ds/runme.htm
This should have changed a lot from the version I remember and I don’t really know if it’s up for the job you want it though.
All I remember is that it had a user friendly interface so you shouldn’t need much time to use it properly.

Ah and nice job as always for the video

I missed it too. I found it after I downloaded the 8GB broadcast file.
This is a realy good intro. keep up the great job.

Maybe he was using R1? They are quite easy to heat up, hence the high pressures to avoid overheating. (Default set uses R2)

there is no thing like "the best setting", read some setup guides and experiment.

Generally it is better to choose the softer tire compound possible, and then try to keep it in normal temperatures.

Last edited by kaynd, Wed 21 Jan 2009, 13:56.

Hey man even monkeys fall from trees.
I don’t say that you are that experienced rider but… shit happens.
If there is anyone that rides bikes and tells you that he hasn’t fall a couple of times like that… well he is lying.
Riding a bike includes these kinds of staff. It’s time to get used to it

As long as this doesn't involve much speed... it's ok

Quote from sinbad :

And the issue is with what the rules irl would allow right? I don't think I made that unclear.

Rules and limitations are chosen by the organizers of each real life league or event... not by “God” who made physics or the entire “word” in where we live and some of us race.

LFS is that visual environment where we all race. There is no need to restrict the entire world in order to make standard classes limiting the existing setup freedom.
This should be a tool for LFS Hosts – the equivalent of league or event organizers IRL.

OmniMoAK

Quote from kaynd :

IRL some engineers do the R&D, products are made by that and being sold to customers…
That’s not because you can’t put whatever spring or damper you want… but because it’s just inefficient.
Even in these canned products… you have a perfectly matched damper with a specific spring regarding the weight that it’s going to hold, and then you get 8-16 settings to fine tune your damping. If you put different springs you have to re-valve your dampers in order to match with them, so you can again have that small available range of settings to fine tune your vehicle.
Who is going to play that R&D role in LFS? Why I am not able to do that myself?

You might not know always the exact values, but there are usualy ways to have something a litle softer or harder if you spend some energy to search.
You might see that 0.1 damping value in LFS and look to you like "yeah right"
But not all this damping values spectrum is usable…
Taking as an example the rear spring of the XFG hard track setup.
For that 40NM spring, 4.2Ns/mm to 5.6Ns/mm is mainly the effective rebound damping range. (~70-95%). There are just 14 effective settings for that spring rate if you do not want to overdamp it… And maybe 10 more if you do not care passing in some extent the critical damping. (Blame the silk smooth tracks for not having bad consequences on traction about that)
In fact, IRL there are some adjustable dampers (or paired coil over kit) that claim to have a range of 30-40 settings all paired with a small range of springs. (I am talking about 1000-2000$ sets)
Also it might seem illogical… but there are many who do things like that and do not even race the car on a track.
Small, cheap, sport oriented cars are really tempting to tune in almost any aspect. (ok you have to be that kind of person that does things by himself or else any budget will just evaporate)
But as I said if you can physically change a spring, why can’t you change anything else that you can? Because it costs? You already said that you do not have to be “poor” in a sim. (It’s not about being poor, it’s just about not having enough money for all that which is completely ok )

I already stated though that some adjustments you can not do physically in any car, could be narrowed to more realistic values. In that category mainly fails the transmission and max brake force. Some transmission gears are not even physically possible to produce by having 0.001 ratio adjusting abilities.
But even this is not that important for the evolution of this sim.

A further tire physics improvement is the way to go, in order to see realistic setups some day.

Selectable setup restrictions by the server would be really interesting, mainly for league racing or pickup racing with already provided setups by the server in order to avoid confusion.

Last edited by kaynd, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 13:08.

Quote from Glenn67 :

This reminds me about a particular thread on AC and button clutch macros

Just to be clear - my preference is for as much adjustability as possible - heck I'd love more options - even the ability to design a car from scratch (including aero, suspension and engine packages - heck why not even rubber compounds I'd be in my element ) but I do also want to see setup restrictions to be possible to be set from the server and the ability for servers to distribute a default set for that server to drivers that are joining the server for the first time. That's because I'd really really like to see spec racing

Man you where trying to prove your points. (and I was trying to prove mine) This has nothing to do with what I wrote in my previews post.
Anyway I think that I proved my point back then so there is no need for silly smiles ( )



We completely agree in this specific setup limitations case.

Last edited by kaynd, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 2:39.