rec.autos.simulators

> > To wit - comparing my times at Monza in GPL (stock) and N2K3 (Noonan
> > conversion).  I find that I am 1.5 seconds faster, but not in the sim
you
> > might think....my GPL Monza time to date is 1:32.728, and in N2K3 it's
> > 1:30.200.  That's about 1.5 seconds difference there...

> > I'd have thought I'd be faster in GPL and not N2K3.  I had not run the
> > track
> > in N2K3 before either, but obviously knew how to drive the track though
my
> > GPL experience.

> > But I'm still puzzled as to how I am faster on that track in a stock car
> > rather then an open wheeler.

> > Things that make you go "hmmm....."

> roughly 400+ horsepower, no wings and hard compound treaded cross-ply
tyres
> versus 700+ horsepower,downforce and soft compound slick tyres

> steve

>> I'd have thought I'd be faster in GPL and not N2K3.  I had not run the
>> track
>> in N2K3 before either, but obviously knew how to drive the track though my
>> GPL experience.

>> But I'm still puzzled as to how I am faster on that track in a stock car
>> rather then an open wheeler.
>Try this for an experiment...
>Get a GPL version of Indianapolis Motor Speedway...
>The times will probably be in the 1:00 minute area for a 1967 GP car..
>A good time in N 2003's version of the Brickyard (included in the game...
>not a converted version) will be in the low .50 sec range.
>I think that's just the increase in raw horsepower.
>Timmy

> > Not at all weird really.

> > Twice as much HP, much better ***, some downforce as opposed to
> > almost none in 67 F1...and 35+ years of technical advances in brakes,
> > etc...
> ... and only 1.5 seconds of difference.

> Though in modern F1 they seem to manage to pull out 1.5 seconds every year
> out of nowhere ;)

> Alex.

> > > Not at all weird really.

> > > Twice as much HP, much better ***, some downforce as opposed to
> > > almost none in 67 F1...and 35+ years of technical advances in brakes,
> > > etc...
> > ... and only 1.5 seconds of difference.

> > Though in modern F1 they seem to manage to pull out 1.5 seconds every
year
> > out of nowhere ;)

> > Alex.

>  Hehe, thinking the same thing; 35 years of tech, etc., only results in a
> 1.5 sec increase ?  I don't think thats the answer <g>

> > > > Not at all weird really.

> > > > Twice as much HP, much better ***, some downforce as opposed to
> > > > almost none in 67 F1...and 35+ years of technical advances in
brakes,
> > > > etc...
> > > ... and only 1.5 seconds of difference.

> > > Though in modern F1 they seem to manage to pull out 1.5 seconds every
> year
> > > out of nowhere ;)

> > > Alex.

> >  Hehe, thinking the same thing; 35 years of tech, etc., only results in
a
> > 1.5 sec increase ?  I don't think thats the answer <g>

> If you read back the OP was actually off by a whole second, he must have
> been using that new math..  ;)

> > > > > Not at all weird really.

> > > > > Twice as much HP, much better ***, some downforce as opposed to
> > > > > almost none in 67 F1...and 35+ years of technical advances in
> brakes,
> > > > > etc...
> > > > ... and only 1.5 seconds of difference.

> > > > Though in modern F1 they seem to manage to pull out 1.5 seconds
every
> > year
> > > > out of nowhere ;)

> > > > Alex.

> > >  Hehe, thinking the same thing; 35 years of tech, etc., only results
in
> a
> > > 1.5 sec increase ?  I don't think thats the answer <g>

> > If you read back the OP was actually off by a whole second, he must have
> > been using that new math..  ;)

>   Yep, you're right; 2.5.  Still not much of an increase re 35 years of
> tech, etc., imo.