There is no power to speak of if something isn't using it on the other end. When you rev the engine to 8500 rpm in neutral, it makes no significant power. It's better to have 50 % being used than having none during clutch full engagement period.
(ivantod)
DELETED
by Bob Smith : No 4chan crap, thanks
The original theme seems settled, and Scawen explicitly asked about button clutch issue. So why exactly is here and now not the right place/time to provide an opinion about it?
Eh? When the throttle's fully open at high rpm and you disengage the clutch, the engine is still producing full power unless you cut fuel or ignition. The power just goes into (rapidly) increasing the engine speed. It's still real power. And if you can at least partially convert it back into road speed it's also useful real power.
Sry, don't wanna be dismissive but I'm not getting into energy/work/power discussion with you unless you are willing to go through thermodynamics 1 & 2, internal combustion engines intro and ICE construction first.
Umm, many oval wr's has pit stops? :|
Luckily enough I'm a physicist so feel free to get techy when explaining. (Quite familiar with thermodynamics and engines.)
Then how is it unclear to you what I've said 2 posts ago? If you have an engine revving in neutral it's only going to produce enough power to cover it's inertia/friction/pumping losses. It is not making xyz hp @ 8000 rpm when you floor it in neutral - only when you try and stop it (like connect a resistance to it, then it'll be producing power - and only enough power to overcome that resistance, still not the full power).
If we're talking about a normal syncro gearbox with a manual clutch, like any older road car has, then I agree: since you have to clutch anyway, you will get an acceleration boost if you flatshift (clutching speed same in flatshift and non flatshift). But this has nearly nothing to do with engine inertia.. As you said in your post, power "rapidly" goes into increasing rpm but it's not using anywhere near "maximum" power (meaning power it has at those rpm when on the dyno or accelerating the car and overcoming air resistance, rolling friction, inertia etc).
In fact, if you payed attention when driving a real car you could notice that even when you shift normally (lift off throttle, clutch in, cluctch out, throttle back on) but trying to make it a pretty quick shift, you will still get a little boost from the engine inertia. This is because engine just isn't capable of decelerating fast enough (even when off throttle) to cover the 1500 or so rpm difference between the two gears. If you relied only on engine inertia to give you a boost (as you've said in your first post that your reasoning was that during the whole clutch period engine power was being converted into excess engine speed and this would in turn be converted back to acceleration on re-engagement), you would get only a differentially small increase in inertia that builds up from say 7000 where you shift to 7500 rpm where the hard limiter is, but > 90 % of the acceleration will come from simply engine meeting back with a resistance and trying to stay at the same rpm - starting to produce useful work.
Problem is that you took the FBM as an example.. where the limiter and the shift point are one and the same, so when you clutched on your flatshift.. where can the engine accelerate to? It will just keep bouncing off the revlimiter. The only thing that gives you the acceleration boost is when the clutch meets back with the engine, and in this case there was some positive slippage of the clutch that got converted back to acceleration but it's NOTHING compared to acceleration loss you've experienced during the period when the engine wasn't connected to the wheels.
Scawen modeled these transmissions correctly (as far as power/work/acceleration goes), there is no way you can gain acceleration by disconnecting the engine from the wheels and relying on increased rpm and subsequent slippage on re-engagement, over the dog-engagement gearbox. No matter if if the shift point was 6000 rpm or 9000. Well, it matters a bit because at 6000 rpm the sequential will eat you alive (because clutching there while holding the throttle on will mean that you have a good 4000 rpm for the engine to fight back against the clutch and slip it all to hell).
I think your main problem is not understanding how a dog-engagement gearbox really works. The shifts are very violent, in fact, more violent than a flatshift with a clutch.. but power delivery is nearly uninterrupted (in reality it is uninterrupted, the car will never go into opposite longitudinal G while accelerating), the components are very stressed but they're designed to survive.
If we're talking about a normal syncro gearbox with a manual clutch, like any older road car has, then I agree: since you have to clutch anyway, you will get an acceleration boost if you flatshift (clutching speed same in flatshift and non flatshift). But this has nearly nothing to do with engine inertia.. As you said in your post, power "rapidly" goes into increasing rpm but it's not using anywhere near "maximum" power (meaning power it has at those rpm when on the dyno or accelerating the car and overcoming air resistance, rolling friction, inertia etc).
In fact, if you payed attention when driving a real car you could notice that even when you shift normally (lift off throttle, clutch in, cluctch out, throttle back on) but trying to make it a pretty quick shift, you will still get a little boost from the engine inertia. This is because engine just isn't capable of decelerating fast enough (even when off throttle) to cover the 1500 or so rpm difference between the two gears. If you relied only on engine inertia to give you a boost (as you've said in your first post that your reasoning was that during the whole clutch period engine power was being converted into excess engine speed and this would in turn be converted back to acceleration on re-engagement), you would get only a differentially small increase in inertia that builds up from say 7000 where you shift to 7500 rpm where the hard limiter is, but > 90 % of the acceleration will come from simply engine meeting back with a resistance and trying to stay at the same rpm - starting to produce useful work.
Problem is that you took the FBM as an example.. where the limiter and the shift point are one and the same, so when you clutched on your flatshift.. where can the engine accelerate to? It will just keep bouncing off the revlimiter. The only thing that gives you the acceleration boost is when the clutch meets back with the engine, and in this case there was some positive slippage of the clutch that got converted back to acceleration but it's NOTHING compared to acceleration loss you've experienced during the period when the engine wasn't connected to the wheels.
Scawen modeled these transmissions correctly (as far as power/work/acceleration goes), there is no way you can gain acceleration by disconnecting the engine from the wheels and relying on increased rpm and subsequent slippage on re-engagement, over the dog-engagement gearbox. No matter if if the shift point was 6000 rpm or 9000. Well, it matters a bit because at 6000 rpm the sequential will eat you alive (because clutching there while holding the throttle on will mean that you have a good 4000 rpm for the engine to fight back against the clutch and slip it all to hell).
I think your main problem is not understanding how a dog-engagement gearbox really works. The shifts are very violent, in fact, more violent than a flatshift with a clutch.. but power delivery is nearly uninterrupted (in reality it is uninterrupted, the car will never go into opposite longitudinal G while accelerating), the components are very stressed but they're designed to survive.
Yes, that's gonna not happen anymore, luckily. May the real time appear in that LFSW chart...
You were quite clear, but just wrong
That's IMHO of course. Read on and I'll justify that.
I have no idea why you think that. I've just done some tests to verify that it isn't true in LFS. I don't believe it to be true in real cars either, but of course the engine management system *could* decide to reduce power when in neutral (my car's ECU doesn't even know that though) or if it spots the revs climbing very rapidly. One thing I did observe is that the FBM torque reduces dramatically quite a long way below the actual limiting rpm value when IN a gear (more than I'd expected) and even further below when the clutch is pressed (that's a bit weird and maybe fake?). I thought this was the reason for my original observation but it wasn't - explained below.
This assertion really confuses me. I think you'll agree it's wrong when I explain the test results.
Yeah, have (of course) noticed that. Every 17 year old probably finds that out when first allowed out alone
Yeah, I thought this might have been the problem all along. I had been aware of the limiter of course when I did the hotlaps last year, and thought I wasn't hitting it. But now I see the torque (clutch down) drops way below the limiter... However, that still wasn't it.
This is exactly what I think my results below prove to be true in fact. Doesn't mean you'd want to do it in a long race of course. Or in the FBM as it goes.
They sound like a cool idea if a bit brutal. I guess the tyres and engine mounts take up most of the (brief) strain? Maybe the engines get torn off the mounts now and then?
Now the results to support my slanderous allegation that the one and only scipy has made a mistake
Today I did some acceleration tests on the drag strip in an FBM. Lots of 'em. More than it's fair or sensible to report in this thread so I'll be concise. (Need a new thread for more detail if anyone's masochist enough to care.)
The upshot: when changing some way below the redline (even as high as 8500) the time taken to accelerate to any given speed is significantly SHORTER with the clutched change than with the quick lift. Even when changing more or less at the redline (I was shooting for 9000) I only managed one run in which the quick lift got to a higher speed earlier than the clutched change; in the other runs that clutched change was marginally quicker. (My button rate has been set to 10 for this lot of tests btw.)
As you mentioned, the shift point being so close to the redline in the FBM means that it's a poor candidate for this, but perhaps the MRT has the same box? (And an amazingly high redline
)As a result of all of this, I now believe I understand my original problem btw: while the total time to accelerate to any given speed in the FBM when changing at roughly the redline may be just about identical whether you lift or use the clutch, the speed vs. time graph when clutching shows a slight drop and then a very rapid recovery - very brief deceleration while clutch down, then extra acceleration when it's released, "catching" up on the speed achieved by a "quick lift" change. But that means (by integrating the speed vs. time graph) that the distance covered in the clutched case is slightly smaller. D'oh! Quicker to get to a given speed need not mean quicker to cover a given distance...
(Apologies for length
)This is silly. Add me on MSN and be educated.
It's not actually a motorcycle gearbox, it is a Hewland sequential gearbox, purpose built for racing cars, derived from Formula 3.
http://www.bmw-motorsport.com/cars/formula_bmw_fb02
Though the sequential gearbox itself works just like a bike gearbox, so it doesn't affect the point you were making. I'm just pointing this out so no-one thinks it uses an actual bike gearbox.
I once thought that the Formula BMW would use the gearbox that normally comes with that motorbike engine it has, but I guess it's not suitable for various reasons.
- The racing car gearbox has the differential inside the unit and includes a reverse gear.
- The bike gearbox has no differential or reverse gear.
(The MRT5 really does have a motorcycle gearbox, and the differential is chain driven).
Yep, I was thinking of dog engagement sequentials, first thing that came to mind was a motorcycle. Should've chosen my words a bit more carefully But as Scawen said, doesn't change the point.
Although, Scawen, while we're on the topic of sequentials.. for one of the non-compatible patches in the future (especially one where you'll be doing GTR class rebalancing again) a good idea would be a true ignition cut sequential that kills ignition on half of the cylinders because the current ignition cut gearbox is slower in acceleration than a regular H-type with clutch of the FZR.
But as Scawen said, doesn't change the point.Although, Scawen, while we're on the topic of sequentials.. for one of the non-compatible patches in the future (especially one where you'll be doing GTR class rebalancing again) a good idea would be a true ignition cut sequential that kills ignition on half of the cylinders because the current ignition cut gearbox is slower in acceleration than a regular H-type with clutch of the FZR.
Scawen, better to do for each wheel is heated. One moment is when different drive car, the second time is when different slicks, the third time is when the track forward and reverse. In direct heat is bad left wheel, the reverse is bad hot right wheel.
Have a look at the first repeat([Audi TT]_SO2R_FXR_04675.spr) there I did not warm up tires and see the second repeat([Audi TT]_SO2R_FXR_04649.spr) where I warm up the non-heated side.
Have a look at the first repeat([Audi TT]_SO2R_FXR_04675.spr) there I did not warm up tires and see the second repeat([Audi TT]_SO2R_FXR_04649.spr) where I warm up the non-heated side.
I don't quite get what you are saying. Are you suggesting to put that feature of heating tyres on each tyre? If so, why would that be? I don't think that is necessary at the moment.
Kind offer dude
but sadly I'm not an MSN user... No matter - having figured out what was bothering me, I'm done. You may continue to believe a freely revving engine with fully open throttle is not delivering full power if you wish, no skin off my nose 
yes
The reason:
1)Different slick, for example: r3-r2
2)drive type cars
3)Track direction
I think he's trying to say that in some specific cases (like SO4 and whatnot) left side tires are colder than right side ones, same with rear to front so he's suggesting individual tire warmers for each tire and not only front axle/rear axle. I don't think it's necessary either.
Thank you, all right.
already dizzy from the warm-up tires xD http://www.lfsworld.net/get_spr.php?file=78639
Waiting for a patch on Friday it.
Waiting for a patch on Friday it.
Nice time, but be careful of the walls. The new patch will detect the ones you hit hard.
Thank you. I know. I try not to do so.
It will be interesting to see how much better the times will be with higher temperature set... e.g. on Oval with single-seaters.
WR improve 100%
Im just wondering if this could be done...
Can we make it so that the times are to 3 decimal places?
On oval there is always people with the same times eg: 46.02
Would be better if it could be made so 46.025 or smthing like that.
Also it would work in public races. I was in a race yesturday and in qualy there was like 6 people with the same time.
Can we make it so that the times are to 3 decimal places?
On oval there is always people with the same times eg: 46.02
Would be better if it could be made so 46.025 or smthing like that.
Also it would work in public races. I was in a race yesturday and in qualy there was like 6 people with the same time.
That would be a great improvement to the game indeed but I doubt it can be done easily, just my opinion.
Spinoff : Question for Hotlappers
(204 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG