rec.autos.simulators

by **Greg Cisk** » Fri, 13 Feb 1998 04:00:00

>Not to rain on the powerslide parade, but more often than not
>powersliding is not the fastest way around the track in a modern F1
>car. If you are powersliding the wheels are spinning and not
>transferring power to the track as well as they should be. That said,

This is certainly true in F1RS. If I start spinning the rears with too
much power out of the turns, I know that lap will not be good. It
is actually quite noticable if you bother to watch :-)

Ya I wonder how much the formula changes will***everything up.
I am certainly not into grooved tires in the dry. Did they decide to drop
the grooves or not? I read that the grooves was the reason that Goodyear
pulled out of F1 after this year.

--
Header address intentionally scrambled to ward off the spamming hordes.

by **John Walla** » Sat, 14 Feb 1998 04:00:00

On Thu, 12 Feb 1998 08:01:21 -0600, "Greg Cisko"

>Ya I wonder how much the formula changes will***everything up.
>I am certainly not into grooved tires in the dry. Did they decide to drop
>the grooves or not? I read that the grooves was the reason that Goodyear
>pulled out of F1 after this year.

The current rumour is that Goodyear will be persuaded to stay, but
you're right, their original decision to leave was because of the
grooves. Frankly I suspect that, like Honda, they realised they'd had
their day. Despite what their advertising suggests, the Bridgestone
appeared to be the better tyre last year, and the success of Goodyear
was thanks more to McLaren, Williams and Ferrari than Goodyear
themselves. With McLaren and Benneton optin for Bridgestone (and
Fisichella already looking damn quick in a Bridgestone-shod Benneton)
I think Goodyear may be getting a little nervous.

As for the tyre, time will tell. I'm not a fan of them, in fact I'd
like to see ground-effect, active-suspension, turbo-power, qualifying
tyres, heck even the Brabham fan car, all made legal. F1 is supposed
to be the pinnacle, let them rip.

Instead of changing the cars year after year in a futile attempt to
slow them down, spend some of that enormous research budget of
improving the circuits to make them safer to race. That makes them
better for all formulae, as well as for the spectators (I've heard of
dung beetles refusing to go to Silverstone without a grandstand ticket
- the space alloted for those without a ticket is _atrocious_. 70 to
sit on stony dirt for two hours (or more like ten if you actually want
to be close enough to see a car)? No thanks).

Cheers!
John

by **pau** » Sat, 14 Feb 1998 04:00:00

>As for the tyre, time will tell. I'm not a fan of them, in fact I'd
>like to see ground-effect, active-suspension, turbo-power, qualifying
>tyres, heck even the Brabham fan car, all made legal. F1 is supposed
>to be the pinnacle, let them rip.

>Instead of changing the cars year after year in a futile attempt to
>slow them down, spend some of that enormous research budget of
>improving the circuits to make them safer to race. That makes them
>better for all formulae, as well as for the spectators

If your going to allow all those things back to F1,I think your budget
will have to be pretty huge.You'll probably have to redesign the
drivers so they can stand the G-force they would suffer in
corners.Remember that F1 drivers were even talking about needing
G-suits (like fighter pilots wear),a few years ago.Even with these I
don't think anyone could suffer the forces that could be developed by
a car designed to an unrestricted formula(using todays
technology),certainly not for an entire Grand Prix.

by **Byron Forbe** » Sat, 14 Feb 1998 04:00:00

> Instead of changing the cars year after year in a futile attempt to
> slow them down, spend some of that enormous research budget of
> improving the circuits to make them safer to race. That makes them
> better for all formulae, as well as for the spectators (I've heard of
> dung beetles refusing to go to Silverstone without a grandstand ticket
> - the space alloted for those without a ticket is _atrocious_. 70 to
> sit on stony dirt for two hours (or more like ten if you actually want
> to be close enough to see a car)? No thanks).

> Cheers!
> John

After reading this I feel a little less lonely here on planet earth
knowing now that there are actually other INTELLIGENT lifeforms here,
hehehehehehe. My thoughts exactly.

--
We are the Hosh! You will be assimilated! Lower your defences
and surrender! Your technological and biological distinctiveness
will be added to our own. Your culture will be adapted to
service us. Resistance is futile. Have a nice &*($ing day!

by **John Walla** » Tue, 17 Feb 1998 04:00:00

It already is. Change is expensive, stability is not, and it is in
changing the rules all the time that the gulf between the haves and
have-nots becomes greater. In the meantime the spectacle becomes
diminished, as the cars this year have less downforce than last years
F3 regs.

Cheers!
John

by **Ronald Stoeh** » Tue, 17 Feb 1998 04:00:00

> >have-nots becomes greater. In the meantime the spectacle becomes
> >diminished, as the cars this year have less downforce than last years
> >F3 regs.

> Basically I agree, yet, Schumi was faster on grooved tires in Mugello
> this year than last year. This lets me hope that the diminishment of
> the spectacle is not so big that F1 degenerates to F3.

I think, F3 races are often more enjoyable than F1 races because they
actually race each other instead of parading down the track waiting
for a pit stop...

Of course, nobody knows if the changes for this year will actually lead
to more close contact racing...

l8er
ronny

--
|\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather,
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep.
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car,
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

by **Bob Conno** » Tue, 17 Feb 1998 04:00:00

> It already is. Change is expensive, stability is not, and it is in
> changing the rules all the time that the gulf between the haves and
> have-nots becomes greater. In the meantime the spectacle becomes
> diminished, as the cars this year have less downforce than last years
> F3 regs.

> Cheers!
> John

The above statement is not true about this year's f1 cars having *less*
downforce than last years f3 regs. The only thing changed about this
year's cars is that the rear track has been narrowed. The sidepods
haven't been narrowed much at all if any. Scummi has said that to brake
for the fast corners the braking points are nearly the same.
RC

by **John Walla** » Wed, 18 Feb 1998 04:00:00

Perhaps I should have said less grip rather than less downforce, but
it is a fact that this year's F1 cars have less overall grip than 97
spec F3 cars.

Regarding the new regs, I don't know where you heard that the cars are
similar since they are significantly different in many ways from 1997.
Width, grip, downforce, tyres, all different, and although braking
points are the same (thanks to brake compounds remaining unchanged)
the margin for error is significantly changed.

Cheers!
John

by **Piers C. Structure** » Thu, 19 Feb 1998 04:00:00

There are/is an unlimited powerboat category. The driver/pilot/captains
in those seem to put up with high-G well in excess of anything dished
out by today's F1 cars.

--
Suck The Goat

by **pau** » Fri, 20 Feb 1998 04:00:00

I'm not referring to todays F1 cars or drivers.I havn't got the
figures readily to hand, but I will retrieve them when I have time.It
certainly was the case that some years ago,(Prost was still driving)
that I read articles stating that many drivers were having trouble
coping with the G-forces in the cars of the day.If they didn't
restrict the Formula god knows what would happen.Have you ever noticed
that each years restrictions always involve reducing cornering speeds?
Remember that in an F1 car going through a long curve the forces
exist at their peak for quite some time,which is far worse than a high
instantaneous G force.Also look at the G-loadings that you face each
lap braking ,accelerating and cornering many times a lap.Each
application of G loading decreases your subsequent ability to resist
furter G loading.
I don't really follow powerboats,but most that I have seen
use aerodynamics to firstly reduce drag by lifting the hull,or planes
and then to achieve stability.I really doubt they would have very high
sustained lateral G -loadings,but I'm intrigued now so I will try and
find out.

On Wed, 18 Feb 98 08:14:04 GMT, "Piers C. Structures"

>> If your going to allow all those things back to F1,I think your budget
>> will have to be pretty huge.You'll probably have to redesign the
>> drivers so they can stand the G-force they would suffer in
>> corners.Remember that F1 drivers were even talking about needing
>> G-suits (like fighter pilots wear),a few years ago.Even with these I
>> don't think anyone could suffer the forces that could be developed by
>> a car designed to an unrestricted formula(using todays
>> technology),certainly not for an entire Grand Prix.

>There are/is an unlimited powerboat category. The driver/pilot/captains
>in those seem to put up with high-G well in excess of anything dished
>out by today's F1 cars.

>--
>Suck The Goat

rec.autos.simulators

F1RS is Awfull! Version 2

F1RS is Awfull! Version 2

F1RS is Awfull! Version 2

F1RS is Awfull! Version 2

F1RS is Awfull! Version 2

F1RS is Awfull! Version 2

F1RS is Awfull! Version 2

F1RS is Awfull! Version 2

F1RS is Awfull! Version 2

F1RS is Awfull! Version 2

F1RS is Awfull! Version 2