http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=1720

This thread mentions the exact same 'problem'. LFS has been out for a few
years and some of us have seen things come and go, and come again, and
then repeat itself once more.

LFS emerged from the thoughts of SEV with plenty of settings right from the
beginning. I'm sure many of you where attracted by this. Time has shown
that most racers do NOT want to go throught any of this and most will settle
on a setup and just live with it (adjusting it over time) while some will simply
use setups from racers who are known to be 'fast'. Most performance
affecting options take that route wether you like it or not. If there's a
performance penalty/advantage, people will look for the exploit, and NOT
the realistic setting. In that regard, adding a cam timing value is pointless as
i'm sure we'll eventually find one optimum setting and most will use only that.
No thoughts on the physics of things, the only reason would be to not be the
slowest. That defeits the purpose imo.

I've experienced this myself with the F08 in S2, took me a month to learn the
exploit in the aerodynamics and why people all got to 300kmh+ while i was
topping at 270kmh. It was a conbination of aerodynamics and tire pressure
actually. The point is i didn'T LEARN the physics to understand what i may
have setup wrong, i learned on LFS forums that x setup was slower and y
setup was faster. That's not what i call a sim, sorry. Like i said in that other
thread, once everyone uses the 'same' settings, it will only be a penalty to
n00bs. There would have to be many choices each offering
advantages/disadvantages to actually make it worth while choosing one
over the other. Else it's just a 1337 switch.

Just my 2cents.

Quote from tristancliffe :

and cam timing are set at 'optimum' values before the engine is run on track (unless the engine builder was an idiot (most of them) in which case you see people fiddling in the paddock).

Untrue. Changing cam timing without changing cam profile will effect the character of the engine, and may be a way to gain an advantage at X track if the same cam profile is mandated for the entire season. At some tracks, area under the torque curve will be more important than peak numbers, and vice versa.

Quote :

The only worthwhile change to adjust performance would be to change the cam profiles, but thats a big change, and tends to require a bit of an engine strip down.

I guess it depends on your idea of worthwhile. I've seen parameters as seemingly "not worthwhile" as valve lash adjusted to take maximum advantage of X rule mandated valvetrain. Tradeoff component life for a wee bit of extra torque at a certain critical point.

Quote :

Either way, I think LFS would benefit by NOT having adjustable cams or ignition timing.

And I think LFS would benefit by having realistic setup values. i.e., you can't miraculously remove the sway bar in the cockpit and subsequently add it again with near infinite stiffness.

I think the gear ratios chosen ought to approximate the available ratios for real world gearboxes...or at least not be infinite. If you put a 1.6:1 final drive in the puppy, you should be prepared to have a lower MTBF than the guy with the 2.77.

I find it bizarre that people enjoy and want the ability to screw around with every aspect of the car in a decidedly non-realistic fashion EXCEPT for the engine.

It might make things interesting if the XF had to decide if the race at WE Int'l was worth throwing that peaky 292 cam in that they wouldn't want to bog out of T1 at BLGP with.

Right now we're given a car, and an almost infinite selection of suspension components to play around with and adjust to be optimal at a given track. While an optimal BLGP setup for an XF will be fast anywhere, it won't be as fast at FE Club as a setup optimized for FE Club.

Whats wrong with allowing the same infinite number of choices for tuning the engine? Like suspension components, everything is a tradeoff. A 1.6 liter DOHC four banger isn't going to magically make mucho power if I can suddenly adjust silly little things like cam timing and fuel mapping. Just think....I could have an endurance map and a sprint map.

If some person doesn't want to have to adjust those things, they can just use the known good default setup, or cherrypick a setup off of someone who put the work in...just like they do now.

I'm convinced skiingman

Off-topic: What I think LFS needs is the option to limit car setups settings to finite values. Take the Aussie V8 supercars and their diffs as one small example. They have a limit of three diffs to choose from which I think are 3.7:1, 3.5:1 & 3.25:1. It would be good to run a comp in LFS that allowed setups to be controlled without the option of near infinite settings.

Server side optional of course.

On-topic: I've been wanting to tweak engine mapping in LFS for ages... I know bugger all about it, but would learn if LFS allowed it

Same here. On some cars, I have been wishing for more low end torque, even if it means losing a quarter of the peak horsepower!

I'm not sure if LFS simulates an engine in enough detail to do this properly anyway.

What's this talk of reducing gearing options? Don't give them ideas!

Quote from Rotary :

Off-topic: What I think LFS needs is the option to limit car setups settings to finite values.

great idea. smaller value ranges would be better i think

well, if you adjust the cam more than a certain amount, it would be just the same as it was before lol. And, with the cam timing, some people would have low-end torque, and others would have more high-end. On oval racing, you would use high-RPM type cams, and on a dragstrip perhaps, you would use mid-RPM cams.