Adjustment isn't fine enough at the moment. I assume the adjustment mechanisms in reality have free range of movement within their total range??

Quote from Blowtus :

Adjustment isn't fine enough at the moment. I assume the adjustment mechanisms in reality have free range of movement within their total range??

Yes but short of F1 your not going to get an adjustment that fine, in fact getting an accurate adjustment measurement isn't very common in itself.

In reality F1 cars have a couple of different types of wings and they are few angles how they can mount them. So the aerodynamic adustability is not very accurate in real life so -1 from me

At least by 0.5 increments would be better. Currently the adjustment of one increment is not sufficient to provide the level of accuracy that would be possible. It would be useful to be able to make smaller adjustments to wing angle than we currently can.



2c

Only for the formula cars. In fact, the GTRs' don't look adjustable at all--especially the front, yeah?

On a similar note, shouldn't we have a Monza wing for the BF1?

Aren't the wing setting in real life cars based on "clicks" or "levels" instead of scientific angle parameters? One click dowforce more on the rear wouldn't be 1 degree:
http://www.racecar-engineering ... ebook/12_9_5/caption1.jpg
http://www.racecar-engineering ... ebook/12_9_5/caption4.jpg

I know that previously I have said that we should be able to adjust the wings more precisely but it seems I was wrong . It is a bit similar like with the gearbox settings. It is not possible to make a gearbox that allows you to change the gears in 0.001 precision (ratios) and it is not possible to make a wing attachment system that allows you to prefectly adjust the wings in 1 degree precision. It is a mechanical design problem, there just isn't room to make enough holes in the wing supports for 30 different wing angles . Maybe the cars in LFS could have differences in how much and how many steps they have in possible wing angles? Maybe something like 10 or 15 different wing angles for the FOX for example?

-1

Keep it at 1 degree... makes it easier for setups and perhaps having a wing that is so fine with its adjustments is a bit overboard imo.

The last thing I need is the wing settings that needed to be adjusted to smaller amounts, what we have right now is fine. Usually you can find a wing combination that is either understeery or oversteery just by 1 degree added or dropped on the rear. This is good that you know and feel the difference. But what does 1 degree or even halves of a degree going to help you with? Like 1/2 mph faster??? Gimme a break. And if you need to alleviate some setting and want to keep a certain downforce level, just do something else to the car that gets rid of understeer or oversteer. That is the beauty of making setups in LFS, you work in conjunction with other settings to make something you like. I'd hate to keep having smaller and smaller adjustments to the wing... thats being a bit tooo anal imo.

Moving it by 0.5 would be fine, but anything less is just crazy.

damned reposts

Even if the current degree of adjustment is 'accurate' it seems a little at odds with the rest of the setup features huge adjustability.

Tweaker - just because you do not understand the benefit in something doesn't mean that others would not. This suggestion takes nothing away from the ability to add as much downforce as you want, making the difference noticeable. I have been working on a set for the fo8 at aston north. One click of downforce either way makes a huge difference - either it doesn't turn enough or it turns too much. I can of course adjust this with the highly adjustable suspension settings, but they affect low and high speed corners equally, which is not ideal. I have confidence I'll be able to find the right combination eventually, but it seems a pointless complexity to the process.

Quote from Tweaker :

The last thing I need is the wing settings that needed to be adjusted to smaller amounts, what we have right now is fine.

It might be the last thing you need, but you are not everybody. As a person who makes his own sets I know that 1 degree increments are less than satisfactory because the amount of change that one degree makes is too large to actually fine tune the aero. The amount of change in the behaviour of the car after a one degree change is very noticeable. Half the amount of adjustment would solve many setup issues.

I can't say I've needed or wanted it yet, but +1 on the suggestion.

agreed

Quote from Gunn :

...
As a person who makes his own sets I know that 1 degree increments are less than satisfactory because the amount of change that one degree makes is too large to actually fine tune the aero. The amount of change in the behaviour of the car after a one degree change is very noticeable. Half the amount of adjustment would solve many setup issues.

Imho, that "issue" is part of the car's characteristics. Some racing cars have more and some have less possible wing angles meaning that the aero can't be adjusted to perfection. Of course real cars have the option of having several or at least few different wings for different purposes. However, LFS should not offer unlimited amount of setup options with infinite amount of steps between max and min values. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't get more new setup options and features but it means that the setup values need to have some logic behind them in form of realistic increments and minimum and maximum values.

Quote from Hyperactive :

Imho, that "issue" is part of the car's characteristics. Some racing cars have more and some have less possible wing angles meaning that the aero can't be adjusted to perfection. Of course real cars have the option of having several or at least few different wings for different purposes. However, LFS should not offer unlimited amount of setup options with infinite amount of steps between max and min values. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't get more new setup options and features but it means that the setup values need to have some logic behind them in form of realistic increments and minimum and maximum values.

Your opinion doesn't change the fact that a one degree adjustment can ruin the handling of the car and the amount of compromise needed in other areas to "correct" the problem negates the aero change in the first place. It can be improved and smaller increments would achieve an improvement.

Quote from wark :

Only for the formula cars. In fact, the GTRs' don't look adjustable at all--especially the front, yeah?

The main front air dam/undertray of a GT car is normally not adjustable. http://www.schwedenkreuz.se/bilder/M3/CF-delar/IMGP2131.jpg

However some cars (actually very few) have little adjustable winglets, see attached pic. Generally GT cars go for as much downforce as they can at the front and balance it at the rear, due to large weight/harder tires vs. plenty of power.

Quote :

On a similar note, shouldn't we have a Monza wing for the BF1?

I think the current range of angles is more than enough to simulate Monza style settings. Possibly when the aero model is more advanced we could see different wing options but for now there is no point.

Quote from Hyperactive :

Aren't the wing setting in real life cars based on "clicks" or "levels" instead of scientific angle parameters? One click dowforce more on the rear wouldn't be 1 degree:

It depends on the type of car when the adjustment is to a single plane rear wing then it's normally one of those clicky systems that gives you a lot less precision, about 8 max. Small single seaters will usually have a sliding system where you loosen one screw pivot the wing to where you want and then tighten it again when your happy, now this may theoretically be a limitlessly fine adjustment but in reality it's very vague and you can't adjust it to precisely where you had it last time so it's normally left alone unless there's a need to change it. Bigger single seaters have a system of winding on more wing, which will be more accurate but still not exact, but I don't know much about that.

Quote from Blowtus :

Even if the current degree of adjustment is 'accurate' it seems a little at odds with the rest of the setup features huge adjustability.

The rest of the setup is already far too adjustable. People don't seem to realise that setting a car up IRL is a mixture of guess work and compromise, short of F1 nobody has there car setup as well as they would even in LFS if LFS had realistic settings, this is due to the fact that there isn't the time or the money to do that much testing and even things that are designed to be adjustable still take time to do.

Quote from Gunn :

Your opinion doesn't change the fact that a one degree adjustment can ruin the handling of the car and the amount of compromise needed in other areas to "correct" the problem negates the aero change in the first place. It can be improved and smaller increments would achieve an improvement.

Improvement to make the car better? You could say the same thing if we some day get gear ratios that are based on the teeth count of the gears. One ratio is too low and another is too high for perfect maximum speed or corner. Imho, it is just something that is part of racing

Quote from Gunn :

Your opinion doesn't change the fact that a one degree adjustment can ruin the handling of the car and the amount of compromise needed in other areas to "correct" the problem negates the aero change in the first place. It can be improved and smaller increments would achieve an improvement.

In reality you'd just either put up with it or change something else to accommodate. If one degree one way or another makes a car undrivable to you you seriously need to adjust your driving style to cope with it.

Quote from Hyperactive :

Improvement to make the car better?

No, improvement to make creation of setups better. Most people don't make their own sets so they wouldn't care either way.

\

Quote from ajp71 :

In reality you'd just either put up with it or change something else to accommodate. If one degree one way or another makes a car undrivable to you you seriously need to adjust your driving style to cope with it.

Oh please. Just try to understand the concept.

What I'm trying to say is that wing values have some limits based on the mechanical structure and attachment etc. of the wing. Having these limits in LFS isn't too big challenge as it is "just" slightly limiting the options available. I am not saying that wing angles can not be adjusted in 0.5 precision, I am saying that the mechanical structure of the wing doesn't allow this withing the whole range of wing angles. Check the attachment for this.

For now I would appreciate the extra flexibility that 0.5 degree adjustments would bring.
Perhaps when all the car settings can be adjusted to the appropriate level of precision (e.g. dampers usually have only a few settings, springs come in fixed stiffness with a reasonable gap between stiffnesses, ARBs come in certain thickness (but some also have something you can slide to adjust their effect), etc) wing mount points can also be taken into consideration.

yes - consistency within the different setup options. Either aero should have more adjustability or the others should have less

Good points on both sides. On the one hand, many (most?) wings are adjustable in steps of probably a fair amount over one degree, while the screw type ones would be infinitely adjustable (dial in 1/100th of a turn if you want). On the other hand, many people want finer adjustment for the sake of better tuneability, where the handling is ruined if you go 1 degree either way.

One thing to keep in mind is that on the wings designed for a specific real car, it's probable that the available settings were given much more careful design consideration than simply allowing 7,8,9 degrees (or 7, 10, 12 for that matter). Suppose a real wing was tried with 7,8,9 degree adjustments. The crews might have found that usually 7 wasn't enough, but 8 was too much. The aero folks might provide a newly redesigned wing with 7.5, 8.5, and 9 degree adjustments.

Perhaps the guys that want the finer adjustability are really the engineers in the LFS world. Why not allow the finer adjustments for awhile, then later on pick out the fastest set of 5 or 6 or whatever settings and keep those as the only available options? Might that eventually lead to the best of both worlds?

^^Real wings aren't finely adjusted normally although a slider can be infinite normally using fixed holes is far more accurate and recordable so you can get the same setup again but like I said I strongly doubt even a top level FIA GT team would adjust the wings for each circuit even when they can due to the lack of testing they'll go for something that works with only a few of settings they ever use.

I remember reading somewhere an article written by someone involved with F1 in the '60s, when they had real variety in circuits, saying they only changed a few very limited settings every for certain tracks even though they could have had far more adjustment had they chosen to.

I think Todd raised the (valid) question: Someone has to drill those holes, so who does it?

Not so much who drills the holes, who picks the best positions to draw the instructions to give to the person with the drill?