Quote from ATC Quicksilver :

This year has the best looking cars since the late 90's in my opinion.

That doesn't take much.. I don't think the cars have looked very good since they started using those "hanging" front wings. Sure, it creates more downforce, but the low noses looked WAY better imo

Quote from P5YcHoM4N :

F1 engines are torque-less anyway

I'd say 310-315Nm (230-ish lbft) is pretty good for a 2.4L NA engine..

Quote from RasmusL :

The 2013 engines will probably have a wider powerband, but will also have to deal with turbolag.

I wish

Large bore exhaust runners on a flat crank engine, a crosspipe, and removing the cat will make a N/A engine sound almost like that.. My miata sounds like that (just as awful, I hate that rasping exhaust resonance. Can't wait to get the turbo on it). In other words, it should be possible to make the XR cars sound like that, but why would you want to?

Quote from scania :

if you have a perfect start of drift, why do you need to maintaining the drift @ middle & the end?

because a corner has a middle and an end, and eventually a ff car WILL lose sideways momentum

Quote from TexasLTU :

I heard Fangio will replace Raikkonen for Valencia

Mansell for Nakajima?

Quote from NotAnIllusion :

I agree that FIA's overdoing the scare and divide-and-conquer tactics

They seem to divide just fine, it's the conquering part that needs work

Quote from ultrataco :

Ban on refueling in 2010? The races are going to have to be a heck of a lot shorter.:mad: Maybe they could run two sprint races or something. (Doesn't GP2 do that?)

Senna did a full Monaco GP on one tank (and one tyre set too). No pitstops for a whole Monaco GP is quite an achievement

Quote from TouringBubble :

Exactly my thought ... I should try this out.

I usually just lay out a few obstacles and drive it to see how it feels. I generally adjust for how fast I want an obstacle to be taken and not really distance.

yeah, that's the way I do it when I make layouts from scratch.. But the point is that I'm trying to make the autocross course we use around here IRL

is there a way to measure the dimensions of a layout? I'm looking to make a real autoX track (the one we use around here), but I need to measure the distance between the cones..

Updated layout in 1st post. The track itself is unchanged, only added some chalk arrows and expanded a route checker.

and now screens:





















Video on it's way, waiting for it to be approved for youtube or something like that..

[edit]And here it is: http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=SuDISXFcwYA

Last edited by TurboLag, Fri 28 Nov 2008, 03:06. Reason : Video online

will do in a few days, got exams at school.. have some other updates I need to do aswell

Quote from G!NhO :

well, i dont haver a clue were to go

Directions in first post. Don't go flat out first run anyway, cause that is guarantueed to fail..

Trying to do a clean run again and make a vid of it, but it's hard... Trying to get it done by tomorrow

A layout I threw together. It's quite tight, but it is manageable. I just drove a 1.26 without a single hit. It used to be even tighter, but I had to open up the 2 boxes a few cm in order to get enough room to flick around in there.

It consists of an acceleration straight, into a right hander, straight, "360 box" where the route checker is placed so that a full 360 spin is the fastest way through, 90* left out of the "360 box", straight, hairpin around the blue cones, 360 around the yellow cone, through the gap in the tyres, stop between the 4 "mechanics", reset car (in order to change tyres), right out from the wheelchange area, around the "360 box", through the left hander, 180 degree turn in the garage thingy, keep left, though the tyre slalom, keep left out from the tyre slalom, through the last tyres, do the hayball roundabout, and finish through the barriers.

Tried to make it self explanatory, but I might have missed out somewhere as I always knew where to go since I made it.
Keep red cones and tyres to your right, keep white cones and tyres to your left, go clockwise around blue cones, co ccw around yellow cones.

Recommended engine trim is 550-590 hp, 750-800 Nm and 4wd which means you probably will need LFSTweak to do this as intended, but I guess it should be possible to have fun on it in RWD cars aswell

I might update the track with better chalk directions if ppl want, and maybe even extend it.

I don't have time to put up screenshots atm, so please feel free to do so

And btw: WHEEEE, my 1st LFS release

Last edited by TurboLag, Fri 28 Nov 2008, 01:52. Reason : Updated layout

am I missing something? the .lyt seems like an invalid attachment

a Torsen differential (both for my Miata and in LFS)

Quote from Woz :

Please tell me a SINGLE road car that has as little as 720 rotation?

Ford Sierra Saphire Cosworth (That's the 4x4 Sierra Cosworth)

Last edited by TurboLag, Sat 27 Sep 2008, 22:33.

I'd rather have torsen differentials than full out active ones...

Quote from mrodgers :

The statement he makes talks of autoclutch. With autoclutch, when you spin, LFS attempts to feather the clutch causing extreme slipping while the car is moving in reverse at 40 mph and the transmission is in 5th with the driver's foot planted firmly on the throttle. Put your Miata into a spin, and hold full throttle while having your clutch halfway engaged. I'm sure it will relate closer to LFS than your statement of "skid away in a big blueish cloud."

Put LFS into manual clutch, no matter if you have a pedal or use the button. Then spin and note what happens. The clutch does not heat up. The car stalls instead or the tires spin in a "big blueish cloud."

Again for the 22364 time, the fault is in the autoclutch not the clutch modeling itself.

AH! Agreed I use manual clutch myself, so I haven't really experienced the problem

Quote from Woz :

...put the clutch in when then spin. IRL if you spin you put the clutch in to protect it...

How long has it been since you got your clutch changed? Only once have I driven a car where I needed to press the clutch in a spin, but the clutch fell out in broken pieces when we took down the transmission on that one. On my own Miata, I can hold full throttle in a spin and just skid away in a big blueish cloud...

wankel still has a shaft with eccentric lobes on it

XFT imitation of an Escort RS Turbo?

Quote from IlGuercio :

it has thousands of moving parts,and it just produces power in just one of its strokes.You cant say an engine like this is smart,can you?Wankel is not the solution,but surely it is a much more solid base to start from(at least theoretically).

Thousands, no. I'm (re)building my own I4 engine for my car, and I end up with about 120 moving parts if you dismantle the oil pump, water pump, turbo, cam angle sensor, dynamo, belt tensioners and clutch assembly and add the rest of the more obvious components. About that thing about producing power in only 1/2 of the strokes, it's still more agile and economic per hp/Nm than a 2-stroke piston engine. Get a 4-stroke piston engine to burn the same amount of fuel as a wankel, and you'll see who gets more power and torque..

To the people who think explanation is boring, mark this thread as read and move along..

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

...If you don't think so... get ahold of a turbocharger, and try to spin it up with just air. Then try it with a blowtorch and see what happens ...

Then put bare piping between the compressor wheel and the exhaust turbine inlet, mount a fuel injector and a flare, spool up the turbo, start the fuel supply and ignite.. it WILL run by itself simply because of it's generating pressure by raising the temperature. It's exactly how a jet engine works.. So it's the pressure rise, not the temperature rise that drives the exhaust turbine. If there were some other way to increase the pressure (well, you could use another pressure supply but that would just ruin the whole idea), it would work aswell!
The reason a larger exhaust pipe system would improve spool-up is because it generates less backpressure on the exhaust turbine, thereby increase the difference in dynamic pressure between the manifold and the downpipe..

BBT: I agree with you, but the chain reaction IS there and it's why we have wastegates to route exhaust pressure outside the exhaust turbine.. And as you say, it's the expansion of gases (yes, we do use temperature to achieve that) that drive the turbo, not the temperature itself.

Last edited by TurboLag, Sun 13 Jul 2008, 01:10.

1st of all, a turbocharger is an exponential chain reaction (more air in = more exhaust => even more air in), which in turn means that the "fade" in boost gain in the higher revs is totally wrong. Exhaust temperature has NOTHING to do with it! It's all about the dynamic exhaust manifold pressure vs exhaust turbine blade area. The wastegate is connected either electronically or mechanically to a pressurized area in the intake and is opened whenever the vacuum or pressure force overcomes a spring in an actuator.

I'll try to post a tranfer function for a turbocharged engine when I get home..