rec.autos.simulators

> ...
> > So when GPL doesn't model camber change, that means when the chassis rolls
> > and the suspension moves up or down, the camber angle of the wheel in
> > relation to the chassis does not change as is would in a real car with an
> > unequal length A-arm type suspension.

> This statement is incorrect.  GPL does, indeed, model camber change with
> bump.  What it does not model is the change in the *shape* of the
> camber-vs.-suspension-deflection curve at different ride heights.

> In GPL, if you set your ride height to 5", and set your static camber
> to -2.0 degrees, then push the chassis down 1", your camber will change by
> some amount, X.  If you then set your ride height to 4" and your static
> camber to -2.0 degrees and push the chassis down 1", the camber will still
> change by X.  In real life it would change by an amount probably close to X,
> but not exactly X (how close would depend on the suspension design).

> Randy

>>    isn't that like downgrading GPL in to a Game?

>No!  In real life I'm sure as heck going to feel when the
>suspension hits bottom. I can't for the life of me tell that in
>GPL. If we don't get the cues, then the sim needs to provide them
>in some manner.  Having a a unique sound would sure help or the
>screen jarring or something would help those of us with less than
>omniscient powers.  This is not making it a game, even though it
>is a game.....

>Jeff

> But, can you define "centerline of the wheels"? -It would seem to me,
> assuming no camber, a centerline connecting two 15" wheels would be at
7.5".

> What I'm getting at is this: how do you correctly measure ride height? -At
> the Zolder Historic GP I measured a 1968 Cooper BRM; the lowest attachment
> point of the rear suspension was 3.8" off the ground (bottom rung of the
> rear suspension, connected to the gearbox). The bottom of the gear box was
> about 0.75" lower I guess. I have an "rain light-level" picture of the
car.
> Assuming the right method, I can maybe calculate the correct ride height
(I
> can send you the pic to doodle on if you like).

> Jan.
> =---


> > Just as a matter of interest for you, Skeeter, the ride height for the
> Lotus
> > 49 (as debuted at Zandvoort) without driver, was approximately 3.75
inches
> > at the centreline of the front wheels and 4.5 inches at the centreline
of
> > the rear wheels. (wheels being the original 15 inch diameter).

> > --
> > Regards,
> > Bruce Kennewell,
> > Canberra, Australia.
> > ---------------------------

> > <Snip>

> Thanks.

> Jan.
> ----

> > Okay....let me put it this way:

> > The blueprint (not a photograph...an actual draftsmans drawing of the
> > original Lotus 49 with DFV installed.  Yes...a copy of an original
> drawing.)
> > that I'm looking at and scaling off gives a minimum clearance under the
> tub
> > of 3.75 inches at the front at a point that is midway between the
contact
> > patch of the left-hand wheel and the contact patch of the right-hand
> wheel.

> > Ditto for the rear except the clearance is under the transaxle (the tub
> > ending at the firewall).

> > Now...not having a micrometer or vernier calipers, and not having a
> > microscope, I cannot verify the this blueprint (at 1:5 scale) is 100%
> > accurate or that my measurements are equally accurate, which is the
reason
> I
> > said "approximately".

> > Does that help?

> > --
> > Regards,
> > Bruce Kennewell,
> > Canberra, Australia.
> > ---------------------------

> > ,snip>

> --DK

> [snip]
> > The blueprint (not a photograph...an actual draftsmans drawing of the
> > original Lotus 49 with DFV installed.  Yes...a copy of an original
> drawing.)
> [snip]