rec.autos.simulators

In a turn, the outside wheel has to rotate faster than the inside wheel.

More clutches will create more corner entry "push" because the tires are
locked more tightly and will resist the car in turning.  (tires are rotating
at same speed)  But this may create more corner exit oversteer as both
wheels want to break loose together.

The lower the ramp angle, the quicker the wheels lock together.

Here, what I think I learned from the books doesn't relate to what I see in
everyones setups.

What I thought I read:  Keep the coast side angles high (85) and the power
side lower, this will stop snap oversteer under braking and use both rears
for accel.

What I see:  People running 85/45 for their power/coast settings.  Sheesh,
could it be any more different?!?!

Can anyone shed some light on this?  I am going to go home and, first,
re-read that section and then try out what I learned.

Chris

: In a turn, the outside wheel has to rotate faster than the inside wheel.

: More clutches will create more corner entry "push" because the tires are
: locked more tightly and will resist the car in turning.  (tires are rotating
: at same speed)  But this may create more corner exit oversteer as both
: wheels want to break loose together.

  Wouldn't corner exit oversteer occur more ***ly if one wheel broke
loose and the other gave traction (that sounds like a recipe to whizz
you off to one side or the other).  I may be wrong of course...  just a
guess.

--
Richard G. Clegg     Only the mind is waving
Dept. of Mathematics (Network Control group) Uni. of York.

www: http://www.racesimcentral.net/

Same thing for lockups, ever drive in the snow?  I can't count the number of
times that I have slid straight through an intersection when trying to turn
in the snow.

I also remember my father talking about his Covette that had posi-traction,
It was great until both tires broke loose and then it all went to hell.  I
had a Mustang that didn't have a posi rear-end, I could sit there and burn
the one tire right off the thing...

Chris

K.S. Br?nnick

Yeah, I agree here. I tried her setups at Zandvoort, Rouen and
Silverstone. Silverstone's neutral setup was good for me but at
Zandvoort and Rouen the car was pushing just too much. Also with the
'loose' setup at Silverstone I was heating up the rear tyres too much
and after few laps the car was too unstable.

Nice. :)
I did pretty much testing at Rouen with 2.5 inch ride heights / Lotus.
As always, the car was understeering more and it was really hard to
get rid of that. I tried almost everything but I was struggling with
high 54's and a best lap of 1:54.57 until I changed the steering
ratio. After that, I immediately improved my time to 1:54.33, which is
exactly 0.4secs of my PB with a lowrider setup.

I don't really enjoy how the car's working with 2.5 inch ride height.
Just too much understeer. Sure, the car feels more 'smooth' and better
when accelerating but when you enter a corner it just pushes. And one
thing more, I don't know if I'm imagining it but the car feels more
nervous when braking. Frustrating. :)

--
Greger Huttu

IMHO GPL does such a great job *overall* approximating what it could be like
to race a 1967 F1 car that it seems like a lot of wasted effort to pick apart
things like the visual representation of the turn-in angles of the simulated
cars versus real-life ones, especially because many of these things can never
be proved or disproved since most of us have never driven (or will ever drive)
a real 1967 F1 car to compare.

Also this is a *simulation* not the real thing, so it shares all the common
limitations of simulators -vs- real-life, i.e. we drive without the
danger or fear of a deadly crash unlike those 1967 F1 drivers, and we are also
deprived of the sensory input of real-life driving which would make it
easier to drive these cars realistically through the corners by feeling the
car reactions through our body instead of a shaking wheel or tire squeal sound.

I think no matter how good the simulation, it will always pale in comparison
to it's real life counterpart, and while I do tend to agree with you that
perhaps the GPL cars may be harder to drive than the real life '67 cars,
I think this is partly due to the inability of *any* simulation to
simulate completely the actual sensory inputs of driving a real life car.

Personally most of the time in GPL I'm having so much fun chasing down
other VROC online racers around the Nurburgring in my Ferrari that I don't
have the time (or the desire) to put every little feature under the microscope
comparing it with real-life (which it can never match). I'm just happy that
GPL online racing is as much fun as it is and that we have this beautiful
simulated monster track to race on :-)

Wondering if you've given VROC a try yet? if not you owe to yourself to try,
and if so, I hope to seeyas on the track soon.

--John (Joao) Silva

buzard

I voiced my opinion on this back when the sim was first released and it is
heartening to see that others are recognising the fact that fast times are
one thing, but the representation of "what was" is entirely another.

The ride heights are *STILL* too low and should be limited to a minimum of 4
inches: even at the flattest, smoothest circuits (and "smooth" is
relative.....modern F1 cars would grind their planks away on every one of
these circuits!) the ride heights were never lower than 4 inches.

--
Best regards,
Bruce.
======
The Stunned Mullet........seriously satirical stuff!
http://welcome.to/the_stunned_mullet
===============================================