It is unfortunate that LFS currently misrepresents 4WD cars. The poor RB4 is the perfect example.

First thing is the engine. with max torque at 4500 rpm and max power at 6054 or so rpm, this is a horrible power curve, especially for 4WD. In fact, all the turbo road cars in LFS desperately need more realistic (aka better) torque curves. For RB4 I suggest 330nm@3500 and 250hp@6500 with cutoff at 7500rpm.

Second thing is the gearbox. All 3 turbo cars should be given 6 speed manuals, not the horrible 5 speeds that make close ratio sets impossible without ridiculously low top speeds. The unrealisticly narrow powerbands make this an even more pressing issue. For goodness sake, even a 2005 corolla sportivo has a 6sp gearbox.

Third thing is the ridiculously fast FWD, the FXO. Yes, it is realistically supposed to be the lightest of the 3. But its true speed secret is those massivley oversized tires. If the RB4 was tired similiarly with all else unchanged, it would destroy all the other 2 cars on any twisty technical circuit through superior grip and traction. Even with the first 2 alterations mentioned above applied to all 3 cars, the RB4 would be the overall winner even if its power to weight ratio ends up slightly less than the other 2. Curently, the RB4 is relatively undertired.

Finally, please make a proper rally version of the RB4 to eliminate the current neglect experienced by the rallycross circuits. LFS does have the potential to make even rival or beat RBR's realism.

FYI, the Audi A4 was kicked out of GT racing due to the inherent "unfair advantage" their Quattro system presents.

Imagine if F-1 cars were allowed 4wd while maintaining their current weight and power levels. Traction control would be effectively obsolete. The fact is, even the current V8s are massively overpowering the rear tires.

In fact, F-1 specifically banned 4WDs due to the potential unfair advantages of a properly develpoed system. Imagine if F-1 cars had WRC style electronic diffs. Why waste 2 wheels with 2WD when 4WD could make the most out of the tires' potential? With current materials technology, drivetrain weight is a non-issue for 4WD since current cars all run underweight anyway. Weight distribution even closer to the ideal 50/50 helps too.

well i can remember that back in S1 the fxo and the turbo had a 6 gears box and they where really powerful. But now since we got GTR cars as well i think the idea of Scavier was to make the Road Cars a bit more realistic and cutting off a gear was indeed very helpful imho.

But i have to agree on that RB4 thing: i loved to race with that car (favorit one as well) in S1 but now in S2 its just another car.

FXO isnt really too fast because it has too wide wheels, it has just too many horses under the bonnet
Also, 50/50 isn't really optimal, unless you want to drift maybe.

Imo, one major disadvantage of the RB4 is also the limited suspension travel. Same makes the GTI very jumpy in the FE green chicane for example.

They're hardly cutting edge modern cars so a 5 speed 'box is realistic. Part of what make the FXO so fast is also the LSD that very few FWD road cars have and also remember none of them are really road cars they're properly track setup.

I happen to follow the latest technological trends in racing and current f-1 cars run about 45/55 F/R. In fact, everyone is aiming for more front downforce and more front weight bias. The mprovements to mid corner performance are obvious to anyone who understands physics (tire load sensitivity, etc). And seriously, do check the latest EVO IX specs (max torque at 3000rpm, max power at 6500rpm). Now that is a realsitic power curve.

Lack of six speeds makes it impossible to offset the unrealistically narrow power bands. In fact, both RB4 and the XRT could benefit greatly from this.

But seriously, try finding a current sport compact in the RB4s class with only 5 speeds. As I've said, even a 32,000AUD Toyota Corrolla Sportivo with the 1.8L 191hp engine has 6 speeds. To say a 6 speed is out of the question defies the realism the LFS is supposed to convey. 6 speeds are so common that even the Nissan Pathfinder 2.5L turbodiesel runs a 6 speed manual!

In layman terms, to not have 6 speeds in cars of RB4 and XRT class is highly unrealistic. Seriously, even an 4G63s from the 80s had much better power curves than what LFS endows the RB4 and XRT.

Hopefully, for the sake of realismm, these problems are rectified. If LFS is as sim as it is supposed to be, why not use relistic gearboxes and power curves?

About the 3 turbo cars being non-roadcar, that is absolutely untrue. These days, no race car would be without rollcages, which the 3 lack. So strictly speaking, they are still road cars. As one of you mentioned, all 3 cars suffer from limited suspension travel, a common trait for most road cars. And FYI, they did have 6 speed Celica GT4s. Besides, lets do something with those excess points we accumulate from race victories. Why not allow a points trading system whereby one could upgrade the car if 6 speeds wasn't deemed standard? It is unfair to just nerf a car to hopelessness.

Trust me, once you've tried rallying, circle tracks would seem superbly boring. Bring on the RB4 WRC!

Sorry guys, I just forgot to mention something.

In the real world, a wider tire with all else equal is always grippier on tarmac. This is due to a phenomena known as tire load sensitivity. Since wider tires have lower contact pressures, the enjoy higher friction ceoefficients. Besides, if a wider tire were to have the same optimal temps and threadlife, the wider is always grippier since, it is less stressed, allowing the use of softer(stickier) rubber.

So, IRL, wider tire is always superior on Tarmac.

A lot of strong opinions and good arguments.

I agree with you about the FXO tyres being an over-compensation for fwd "deficiencies" but as previously mentioned by others, they aren't the only reason it can accelerate so quickly, corner so hard and brake so late.

The race-car/road-debate is one which has raged for some time. Aesthetically, yes, they are road-cars through and through, but under the skin they have far more adjustability and non-factory parts than any production car of that type rolled off the production line with. They are, if not race-cars, very highly modified track-focused road-cars, which are used in this instance for racing.

The 6 speed box thing I'm not so sure about. It's surprising how many of the fastest setups in LFS have used fewer than the available gears, and try making 1st as long as your current 2nd gear, then squash the other 4 up to mimic 2nd-6th in a 6-speed box. Yes bad for quick starts, but I think you'll find the advantages of having the extra driving gear is almost non-existent.
These aren't cutting edge modern cars, so really a 5-speed box fits them ok anyway.

Car upgrades are a big no-no I might add. Really, there is no situation where that would be a good thing for LFS's online racing.

I like the RB4 and XRT as they are.
Their narrow power curve and the few gears make them challanging to drive, especially in respect to the slow spooling turbocharger.
Also RB4 and XRT are well met at the moment. The world records are in favor of the XRT, but due to the likelyness of errors in the RWD XRT this advantage is lost in a normal race-situation.
The FXO however smokes the other two cars in any situation. Better cornering-speed, better acceleration, better top-speed. There isn't a discipline where the FXO isn't superior.
This advantage derives from lower weight, wider tyres and the, for roadcars a-typical, LSD differential.
I'd like to see the FXO as the car with the best top-speed but worst cornering behaviour. Added weight, normal tyre-width and lowered wind resistance would make it a challanging car with it's own character and a justified place in the class that could achieve similar times to the other cars.

And, again, the TBO class is a class made of youngtimer cars. These are late '80s and early '90s cars. So 5 speed gearboxes aren't unnatural at all (if I remember correctly the Mitsubishi Starion, which the XRT is a copy of, also had a 5 speed gearbox, the Porsche 944 Turbo, similar to the XRT, also had a 5 speed gearbox, it was absolutely normal for cars of that time). Also, all cars of the TBO class have a 5 speed gearbox, so no car is at disadvantage here.

Vain

i have to say i agree a little with this thread but one thing that bothers me is ROAD cars arnt as ajustable as lfs cars personaly i would like to limit alot of the adjustments allowed to the road cars.
the adjustments i would leave would have to be
tyre's
tyre pressure's
Add boost adjustmen
adjusting ride hight limit this to 5 stages and from this comes differnt camber suspension stiffness
toe
and maybe a few other little things

Quote from Jamexing :

Why not allow a points trading system whereby one could upgrade the car if 6 speeds wasn't deemed standard?

This one is just a HUGE no no. It has been thrashed many many times and it just does not fit in the core of LFS. As soon as you get into the car upgrade area you end up with the following two situations

1) Noobs have an even worse time as they do not have a car that can compete. So they think they have to push harder so more crashes.
2) Everyone upgrades to the highest spec so everything is the same again.

LFS is about skill. With upgrades it becomes about getting enough points to have a faster car and when you win did you win because of an upgrade difference or skill.


Yes, it would be good if there was more balance in the TBO class but I think a slight drop in FXO tire size would do it. On a long race the FXO would suffer more with tire wear which might force an extra pit stop?

Quote from Jamexing :

And seriously, do check the latest EVO IX specs (max torque at 3000rpm, max power at 6500rpm). Now that is a realsitic power curve.

RPMs for max torque & power don't say much about the powercurve and EVO IX is laggy even though it has a new turbo. Normal 2.0l or even 1.8l engines responses to throttle faster at low revs (under 2500rpm) than EVO IX but after 3000 rpm things really start to happen on the new EVO.

I think removing the FXOs LSD and leave the setups more standard and it'll suddenly look less tempting.

To the thread starter: Stop comparing the power bands to modern cars with progressive (often twin) turbos with anti-lag systems.

Quote from Jamexing :

For goodness sake, even a 2005 corolla sportivo has a 6sp gearbox.

I'd like those cars to be 6-speeds too, however I think the XRs are supposed to be 5-speed 1980s cars like a Mitsubishi Starion. It seems more common (even a marketing tactic) to put a 6-speed gearbox in new cars these days.

The RB4 is like a kind of older Supra/Eclipse hybrid as well.

But IMO the FXO should be a 6-speed like a modern Opel Astra. I believe authentic representationalism ("realisticness," not to be confused with realism) is being sacrificed to have the cars better balanced with eachother, when we'd all just rather have more, divers cars to fill in the gaps...

The FXO and GTT had 6 speed gearboxes in S1...

The upgrade system was just a suggestion, so don't take it too seriously.

However, my chief reason for buying LFS was for realistic vehicle dynamics and realistic representations of relatively modern vehicles. Yes, I've driven EVOs and none of them lag as badly as some of you here claim. Seriously, why waste 36,000USD on a rallycar based roadcar to run it BELOW 3000? Besides, who needs massive torque at 1500rpm IRL street driving anyway? Low end torque would be great for SUVs, but what cars like RB4 and XRT really need is better midrange and high end (3000-fuel cutoff), not the ultra low range torque of a turbodiesel. For goodness sake, they weigh UNDER 1300kg (real EVOS are about 1500kg).

As to the realism that LFS is supposed to repesent, I'm just too disappointed by the unrealistically low powerbands. And FYI, EVOs are all single turboed, but with ultra light titanium turbines for ridiculously fast spool times.

The best example is the 4G62 form the 1980s Mitsubishi Cordia. 1.8L turbo, no intercooler, old TD04 turbocharger. Max torque at 3500rpm, max power at 6000rpm, usable revs from 3500-6500rpm. I happen to have driven this 80s pocket rocket IRL and anything above 3000rpm is lag free. The 5 speed was sufficient for a 185km/h top speed at 6500rpm. So much for outdated 80s technology argument.

What I'm really trying to say here is that a sim like LFS should strive to realistically represent RL cars, not continue the old turbo engine and drivetrain stereotypes of the 1970s and before. And no, I have nothing against the FXO. FYI, evos adopted 6 speeds LATER than subaru because of its comparitive lack of lag to subarus of similiar tune.

AS for the road to racecar argument, we happen to be living in an era of modification haven. In fact, LFS's dampers and springs are wildly outdated if one follows current motorsport trends, when 4-way adjustables are the norm for teams with decent, not just Ferrari sized budgets. The lack of twin-rate springs really stifles all the cars in rally terms.

Seriously, camber and castor settings in LFS are doable IRL. I happen to align the front end of my Pajero myself. Adjustable shocks for race use are about 10,000AUD per set for 4 way adjustable KONI 2822s, or one could use the 2 way tunable LFS versions for about 1000AUD each(I happen to have talked to Koni distributor Toperformance). If an 80's Cordia (FWD!) could easily be installed with 2 way adjustables, why not the 3 turbocars.

FYI, I've got some pretty interesting keyboard driving lap times for RB4 that I currently don't post. The only reason I'm not using steering is due to lack of good FF wheels. All I've tried suffered form highly unrealistic feel.

It's not only tyre sizes and torque curves, though. The drivetrain losses play a big part in 4WD weakness, too. After a quick calculation the effective bhp/ton figures look like this:

FXO: 178.59
XRT: 175.71
RB4: 154.35

FZR: 387.55
XRR: 387.55
FXR: 341.25

Surely, the power/weight ratio doesn't say all, as it alone cannot explain the FZR ownage, but it's definitely a hint why the handling wise well performing 4WD's still get trashed on the track.

Quote from ajp71 :

I think removing the FXOs LSD and leave the setups more standard and it'll suddenly look less tempting.

Unfortunately, just removing the LSD would *immensely* overcompensate for its domination. It would be totally trashed by other cars. Then we'd have the same problem just the other way round

Some time ago a few people tried to make fun but very roady setups for GTi and XR GT. We were testing them and the result was, that there was no way to make the GTi competitive when it's LSD was removed. No matter what you did, the XR GT trashed it easily.

4WD driverain losses alone do not explain the massive lack of track performance. Anyone with any track experience on road courses would quickly discover that the real secret to speed isn't just power. Its tire grip. To prove that RB4 is unfairly undertired, i've not found a setup that could stop the RB4 from overheating ALL its tire when driven at peak performance continuously, not without ridiculously tire high pressures to degrade grip anyway. I've pushed both the XRT and FXO to their limits for 5 laps non-stop at both Aston GP and Blackwood. No luck trying to overheat their tires, even with 36 psi on both cars (obviously, I did't do silly stuff like unnecessary burnouts, though 4-wheel drifts are common for XRT on the edge).

Second point is that real track performance stems from the powerband, not peak power numbers. FXOs FWD traction chalenged nature would thrive on the current narrow powerbands, but it unfairly disadvantages the XRT and absolutely cripples the RB4, where a realistic powerband would showcase the tractive strength of 4WD. Currently, Rb4 has almost all the 4WD cons (understeer can be dialled out via suspension tuning) and very few of its strengths.

Note: I have nothing against the FWD FXO. I do like to drive it (fun and fast car). Please don't nerf it, just improve the other 2. I'm tired of practically all games nerfing the strong to balance with the weak.

No we don't have a Need For Speed. We LIVE For Speed!

Quote from Jamexing :

Its tire grip.

A 4WD car has no magical extra grip, lets get rid of that myth right away. They do however get huge amounts of extra traction. Traction isn't really that much of an issue with either the XRT or FXO hence the RB4 cannot make up for the huge ineffiencies in its drivetrain.

As for EVOs stop using them as a comparision they are very different cars and TBH in road spec not that fast http://www.topgear.com/content/tgonbbc2/laptimes/thestig/ even the 400 bhp EVO can't keep up with either of the TVRs.

Quote from Android XP :

Unfortunately, just removing the LSD would *immensely* overcompensate for its domination. It would be totally trashed by other cars. Then we'd have the same problem just the other way round

I forgot the FXO is using the locked diffs which are totally unrealistic IMO, although one person did manage to find a picture of a car running in some obscure series apparently with one. Maybe just limiting it to an LSD which is uncommon but realistic would be better?

Quote from Jamexing :

No luck trying to overheat their tires, even with 36 psi on both cars

If you set the psi to it's Lowest setting, it would heat up quickly, soft tires are good for grip, but have poor endurance, more harder tires however have poor grip but very good endurance...

Quote from ajp71 :

Traction isn't really that much of an issue with either the XRT... *snip*

The XRT's problem is lack of traction. The RB4 can go full power out of most corners, the XRT has to modulate power very carefully because of the few weight on the rear axle.
That's the reason why XRT and RB4 are very close in real racing performance.

However, the FXO's problem isn't traction. The FXO has no problem.

Vain

@ Vain the XRT does have some issues with traction but I don't think they're really that big, by LFS standards maybe but it doesn't have issues putting power down like a lot of older RL cars do.

Glad this hasnt turned into a flamewar. (yet!) Some good arguments here. I personally really like driving the RB4 a lot, I used it probably the most of any of the cars in S1 and while not as much in S2, it's a joy to drive. But it's true, it is under-tyred compared to the other cars in the class, and it would be nice to have a lower peak torque curve and a stronger mid-range. (i.e. quicker spooling turbo?) Mainly to take advantage of the AWD system. Not having a 6th gear does hurt it in S2, but none of the other cars in the class have it so it seems fair. But, the main way I was competitive in S1 with the RB4 was to have a stupid-low 1st gear and floor it off the line and get ahead early. Now in S2, it's nearly impossible to do that and still have gears that are close enough to keep the car in the powerband.

Now, about setups, I've thought of this quite a bit, and I think it would be a good idea to "lock" the setups down a bit on the road cars. Maybe have a soft, medium, and hard base setting, where the spring and shock dampening are locked down, and have adjustable swaybar and camber settings only. (well, and steering lock and tyre pressue too) Rally settings are a bit more complicated, and more adjustment should obviously be needed there.

But, I've said it before and I'll say it again, the RB4 is a poor rally car currently. It's too heavy and does not have enough power to be competitive. It is the easiest car to drive in the dirt however, but what is dissapointing is that you spend a while making a set, and your confidence level goes up and you're thinking "hey, this set is Quick!" then you go online and get beat by 5 seconds by an FXO. Oh well. :P I would really like to see with the fabled "rally pack" is a handful of rally-prepped cars- not just WRC-style but an S1600 class and maybe even a "stock" class with modified suspension. For sure twin-spring suspension, dual valving (normal and quick dampening settings) and geometry-corrected for higher ride-height settings. First, though, are proper rally tracks where the car's performance on tarmac should not determine if it wins or not... :P

Brendan

This thread is getting real interesting! Just a bunch sincere opinions and good arguments. No highly uncivilized behaviour yet, so lets keep it that way.

I think it best to clarify myself about the 4WD leads to magical grip increase issue. No , I've not implied in any way that 4WD suddenly gets extra grip with identical tires. Hopefully this clears things up a bit.

My main point is that a properly set 4WD system makes the most out of the tyre's tractive capabilities in a way 2WD can never do, and the RB4 would benefit most from a realistically broad powerband, even with current tires.

If the powerband issue alone was rectified, the Rb4 competitiveness is guaranteed to soar, though it will not magically beat the FXO without a matching upgraded tire set.

By the way, the XRT is NOT traction limited at its current state of tune. It would be acceptable with 5sp if its top end was better, say max power at 6800 with 7500 cutoff. Realistically, there is no point revving beyond 7500rpm for an engine of its design. A well setup XRT should understeer mildly on entry, almost neutral mid corner and oversteer slightly on exit. The only way to kill the rears on the XRT currently is via:

a)Doing silly burnouts
b)Poor setup or throttle control leading to unnecessary wheelspin.

If I'm not mistaken, the XRT is supposed to simulate the Mitsubishi Starion. Well, at least they have similiar exterior and suspension designs. To properly represent this supposedly 4G63 powered car, a better powerband is definitely required. If memory serves me right,it had a similiar power curve to Lancer Evo 4G63s, with 3500rpm peak torque and 6500rpm max power, 7000rpm nominal redline with 7500rpm cutoff. Well, at least the XRT has a 7500rpm nominal redline on the tach(one small token of reality).

As for the top gear argument, yes, I am fully aware of those lap times. What everyone seems to overlook is that the FQ400 has a relativelt horrid powerband compared to the standard EVO. One would be better off if you simply upgrade the intake, exhaust and ECU and boost control for a 350hp peak while maintaining or improving OEM powerband. And secondly, both the 280ps and 400ps EVOs run the SAME tires. The same undertired argument applies here. The only major source of lap time loss for the FQ400 was its massive straightline acceleration. No amount of suspension tune could copensate for lack of tire grip. The EVOs run 235/45/17s vs those massive tires the ultra expensive, relatively lighter and overpriced supercars run. 245/35/19 fronts and 345/35/19 rears for the Ferrari Enzo. Try using properly modding an EVO to use 255/40/17s of appropriate design and tyre compound. Thats at least another 2-3seconds off. Add close ratio sets to cope with that narrow FQ400 powerband and don't be suprised if it drops another second or 2.