rec.autos.simulators

by **Kent Hosterma** » Mon, 28 Jun 1999 04:00:00

Ok, I've seen some the low-rider setups some of these really fast guys use
but what's the point? These cars didn't do that. Alison Hines' Ferrari
setups are a lot closer to reality but I question even these settings as
being beyond what the engineers did during that era. 150-180 ARB's? I don't
think so. I don't know though. Does anyone know for sure just what spring
rates are realistic? I believe the 70 to 90 pound range is authentic but
again I'm not positive. What I am positive about is that these cars were
never less than 3.5 to 4 inches off the ground. If you look at the photos or
a movie such as Grand Prix, these cars look more like they were at least 4
inches at rest. I would like to see a replay of a race where everyone used
an authentic setup and _then_ compare the times to what Clark and Hill and
Jack and Dan could do. That would be a valid comparison.

Kent Hosterman

by **Ian La** » Mon, 28 Jun 1999 04:00:00

Only a person who developed and setup the cars in those days would
truely know the proper setup characteristics of a 1967 grand prix car,
and how they affected the car.

And only those ppl could say weather the setup in gpl is truely
accurate.

Some gpl drivers, refer to certain setups has "realistic setups", but
to me all gpl setups are realistic.

It seems all setups will be somewhat "unrealistic" in the eyes of the
purists, unless they are the ones that developed the setup. Of
_course_ using their knowledge of being able to setup real 1967 grand
prix cars <sarcasm>

I've heard alison's ferrari setups refered to as "realistic", but is
it realistic to max out spring rates, or to have arb set so high???

I've got no idea, cause I never setup a real 1967 gp car.

I believe every setup in gpl should be admired for what they are, A
setup for a _simulated_ car, that suits a drivers taste, be it in
speed or drivability etc

Frankly, everyone can keep moaning about what is "realistic" in terms
of a 1967 gp cars til the cows come home, but nobody truely
knows....only the ppl who drove or where around those cars know.

Oh, one last thing for the purists <G> (Essay question ;)

There are purists who believe they "know" what a realistic setup
should look like, and thus believe everyone who does not use their
"realistic" setup is cheating the simulation.

Does this mean that they do not drive or race at kyalami because they
are _unrealistically_ quick compared to 1967 laptimes round kya? And
thus they are cheating the simulation?

i.e. Real 1967 Kyalami Race results
Pole: J.Brabham 1:28.3 Fastest Lap: D.Hulme 1:29.9

Ian

/\ The truth is out there :) /\

by **Christer Andersso** » Tue, 29 Jun 1999 04:00:00

Not really since the real drivers would be totally crazy to drive so close
to the kerbs and so close to the limit of the car as the GPL drivers do. The
sim racer will allways be faster in their sims than the real driver at the
real track. The talents are equal for each sport, but the practice these sim
racers put in doesn't compare to the little track time real drivers get. I
think we got too little grip in GPL, compared to what the real cars had back
then...

/Christer

> I would like to see a replay of a race where everyone used
>an authentic setup and _then_ compare the times to what Clark and Hill and
>Jack and Dan could do. That would be a valid comparison.

>Kent Hosterman

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Tue, 29 Jun 1999 04:00:00

Spring rates in the mid to late 1960s (3 litre era) were typically around
the 170 pounds per inch mark.
Ride heights were, as previiously mentioned, rarely below 4 inches fully
laden.
Adjustments during practise sessions were usually limited to coarse
variation of the suspensions and steering settings. Adjustments between
races (unless the car was undergoing a major change) were usually centred on
gear and final-drive ratios.
Setting up a car was "seat of the pants" stuff.....strong feedback from the
driver and, in a lot of cases, the driver also possessed a strong
engineering knowledge.....Jack Brabham, Bruce McLaren and Mike Parkes are
three that immediately come to mind.,

Alisons setups are certainly a lot closer to reality than these low-rider
arrangements that mimic modern F1 setups....NOT those of thiry years ago.

In response to the Kyalami example, Ian, I have deliberately adjusted the
slowest AI performance to be representative of the average lap times (for
each circuit) from the 1967 season.
That means that, for example, if I am going to race Kyalami then I'll load
the appropriate gpl_ai.ini file for that track prior to booting into the
game.

So yes....I AM reaching for a simulation that is as close as I can get to
the realism of the period represented. (Hopefully GPaL will make the
process of so doing a little easier!)
If I could also receate, race-by-race, the correct grid positions than I
would be even happier!

--
Regards,
Bruce.
------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Tue, 29 Jun 1999 04:00:00

Crap.....with respect, Christer!!

Allow me a quote:- "A racing car should always have more power than its
chassis can comfortably handle". (Tony Brooks).

Allow me another quote:- "The GP cars of 1967 - or most of them anyway - had
emphatically more power than their chassis could handle and the complete
absence of downforce made them simply wonderful to watch." (Nigel Roebuck).
--
Regards,
Bruce.
------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------

by **Remco Moe** » Tue, 29 Jun 1999 04:00:00

Errr, why do you setup the car? To get the most of it. They did that
in 1967, we do it in GPL. So, whatever setup you use, it is always
realistic. Only the environment is different...

Remco

>Ok, I've seen some the low-rider setups some of these really fast guys use
>but what's the point? These cars didn't do that. Alison Hines' Ferrari
>setups are a lot closer to reality but I question even these settings as
>being beyond what the engineers did during that era. 150-180 ARB's? I don't
>think so. I don't know though. Does anyone know for sure just what spring
>rates are realistic? I believe the 70 to 90 pound range is authentic but
>again I'm not positive. What I am positive about is that these cars were
>never less than 3.5 to 4 inches off the ground. If you look at the photos or
>a movie such as Grand Prix, these cars look more like they were at least 4
>inches at rest. I would like to see a replay of a race where everyone used
>an authentic setup and _then_ compare the times to what Clark and Hill and
>Jack and Dan could do. That would be a valid comparison.

by **Richard G Cleg** » Tue, 29 Jun 1999 04:00:00

: Crap.....with respect, Christer!!

: Allow me a quote:- "A racing car should always have more power than its
: chassis can comfortably handle". (Tony Brooks).

: Allow me another quote:- "The GP cars of 1967 - or most of them anyway - had
: emphatically more power than their chassis could handle and the complete
: absence of downforce made them simply wonderful to watch." (Nigel Roebuck).

Proving what? That tells you nothing about the grip level in GPL and
whether it is too high or too low. Unquestionably the cars of 67 had a
lot of power and lacked grip - but did they lack grip to the extent that
the GPL model does. I don't think so. I believe GPL is modelling the
chassis as rigid which it certainly was not (amongst other
things).

Also Nigel Roebuck isn't the most reliable source on earth - if you
listen to Nigel Roebuck every car should be from the 60s and every driver
should be Alain Prost. :-)

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

www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

by **Andre Warrin** » Tue, 29 Jun 1999 04:00:00

So thumbs up for this Nigel then! :)

(Who is this guy by the way?)

Andre

by **ymenar** » Tue, 29 Jun 1999 04:00:00

Roebuck).

I said this Bruce in a thread and you blasted me, so what's the point ? You
disapproved me when I said that the 1967 era's of cars had too much power
for their chassis (the whole myth that the GPL physics for N3 would be too
difficult for the mass), and now approve ? Im lost here sorry ;-P

If the guys at Papyrus give us the tools to make those appropriate setup
tweaking, it because they are realistic of that era. They made research,
and probably know more than any of us on that subject.

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard/Nas-Frank>
-- NROS Nascar sanctioned Guide http://www.nros.com/
-- SimRacing Online http://www.simracing.com/
-- Official mentally retarded guy of r.a.s.
-- May the Downforce be with you...

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise
how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

by **Stephen Barnet** » Tue, 29 Jun 1999 04:00:00

Well said Bruce. GPL's reason for existing was its 'authenticity' . They may
have got it wrong by allowing 'low rider' setups etc, and wrong graphics and
history. But they did do a damm fine job otherwise. We who do 'give a damm'
should be keeping up the message that authenticity only can add to the sim.
The new Papy ride height addition to their patch goes somewhere along the
line. But at only 2.5 inch for minimum ride height is way short of the mark.
I have tried some of the 'low-rider' setups and they are quick, but only for
a few laps. Try the higher setups like Alisons, and everything is not only
as quick, but for lap after lap. Measuring the original plans for the '67
Lotus 49, the rear ride height to the end of the monocque chassis was 4.425
inch, and the front of the monocque, 3.835 inch, as near as I could make
out. The Ferrari 312 of the same year was 4.5, and 3.9 inch respectively. So
maybe somebody should come up with a patch that limits ride height to say
3.5inch minimum, and we could start a 'REAL GPL' symposium.
Steve

>Spring rates in the mid to late 1960s (3 litre era) were typically around
>the 170 pounds per inch mark.
>Ride heights were, as previiously mentioned, rarely below 4 inches fully
>laden.
>Adjustments during practise sessions were usually limited to coarse
>variation of the suspensions and steering settings. Adjustments between
>races (unless the car was undergoing a major change) were usually centred
on
>gear and final-drive ratios.
>Setting up a car was "seat of the pants" stuff.....strong feedback from the
>driver and, in a lot of cases, the driver also possessed a strong
>engineering knowledge.....Jack Brabham, Bruce McLaren and Mike Parkes are
>three that immediately come to mind.,

>Alisons setups are certainly a lot closer to reality than these low-rider
>arrangements that mimic modern F1 setups....NOT those of thiry years ago.

>In response to the Kyalami example, Ian, I have deliberately adjusted the
>slowest AI performance to be representative of the average lap times (for
>each circuit) from the 1967 season.
>That means that, for example, if I am going to race Kyalami then I'll load
>the appropriate gpl_ai.ini file for that track prior to booting into the
>game.

>So yes....I AM reaching for a simulation that is as close as I can get to
>the realism of the period represented. (Hopefully GPaL will make the
>process of so doing a little easier!)
>If I could also receate, race-by-race, the correct grid positions than I
>would be even happier!

>--
>Regards,
>Bruce.
>------------------------------

>--------------------------------------------------------------------

by **Kent Hosterma** » Wed, 30 Jun 1999 04:00:00

>If the guys at Papyrus give us the tools to make those appropriate setup
>tweaking, it because they are realistic of that era. They made research,
>and probably know more than any of us on that subject.

I think that is an assumption that is not necessarily valid. There is
clearly no evidence whatsoever that these cars ever ran "low-rider" setups.
The fact that Papy allowed the cars to be setup that way was a mistake IMO
and I think they acknowledge this via the fact that they are going to a 2.5"
(still not enough)limit in the patch. I agree with Bruce and others in the
pursuit of the most realistic ie.; authentic sim possible. If one does not
seek realism as a simulator then Grand Prix Legends becomes just another
game and that does not do GPL justice.

Kent Hosterman

by **Marko Viitane** » Wed, 30 Jun 1999 04:00:00

...and ^ that should be "I am fast with them only for few laps"...I know
that some other guys can
be fast with them for a manymanymanymany laps...it's _you_ who overheats the
tires, not the setup.

by **ymenar** » Wed, 30 Jun 1999 04:00:00

setups.

Well, of course I see your point.

But IMHO it's not because they didn't used those setups back in the days
that it means they couldn't had used those settings. Who knows what maximum
and minimum settings the teams could use for about everything (spring rate,
gearing, etc..). Im sure Papyrus made research on this aspect, I hope they
did not throw random min/max settings. But of course they might have had
for certain settings like the ride-height, since the minimum height was
changed during the beta testing stage.

--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard/Nas-Frank>
-- NROS Nascar sanctioned Guide http://www.nros.com/
-- SimRacing Online http://www.simracing.com/
-- Official mentally retarded guy of r.a.s.
-- May the Downforce be with you...

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise
how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Wed, 30 Jun 1999 04:00:00

Isn't the most reliable source for what, Richard? Information gleaned
personally by him from his association with the teams and drivers?
First-hand accounts of what went on at the race meetings both on the track
and in the pits?

Just because he has a penchant (as I do) for the Grands Prix of the 1960s
doesn't mean that he is ill-informed. He is extremely well informed, in
fact.

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Wed, 30 Jun 1999 04:00:00

Sorry, Francois.....my error in interpretation.

I thought that you were saying that Papyrus had incorrectly modelled TOO
MUCH power for the cars. I didn't read it as you have now made
clear....that the real cars back then were actually over-powered.

My apology for the confusion.

--
Regards,
Bruce.
------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------

> > Allow me another quote:- "The GP cars of 1967 - or most of them anyway -
> had
> > emphatically more power than their chassis could handle and the complete
> > absence of downforce made them simply wonderful to watch." (Nigel
> Roebuck).

> I said this Bruce in a thread and you blasted me, so what's the point ?
You
> disapproved me when I said that the 1967 era's of cars had too much power
> for their chassis (the whole myth that the GPL physics for N3 would be too
> difficult for the mass), and now approve ? Im lost here sorry ;-P

> If the guys at Papyrus give us the tools to make those appropriate setup
> tweaking, it because they are realistic of that era. They made research,
> and probably know more than any of us on that subject.

> --
> -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard/Nas-Frank>
> -- NROS Nascar sanctioned Guide http://www.nros.com/
> -- SimRacing Online http://www.simracing.com/
> -- Official mentally retarded guy of r.a.s.
> -- May the Downforce be with you...

> "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise
> how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

rec.autos.simulators

Just what _is_ a realistic setup?

Just what _is_ a realistic setup?

Just what _is_ a realistic setup?

Just what _is_ a realistic setup?

Just what _is_ a realistic setup?

Just what _is_ a realistic setup?

Just what _is_ a realistic setup?

Just what _is_ a realistic setup?

Just what _is_ a realistic setup?

Just what _is_ a realistic setup?

Just what _is_ a realistic setup?

Just what _is_ a realistic setup?

Just what _is_ a realistic setup?

Just what _is_ a realistic setup?

Just what _is_ a realistic setup?

Just what _is_ a realistic setup?