great addition to what we see in the teams info menus.
> Dave,I have reread for the tenth time(:)Doug arnoa's interview by
>Randy Magrueder.It specifically states that a 1in ride height and a
>1in bump *** setting means no suspension play at all.Then he goes
>on to say that the bump ***s act like stiff springs and are
>modeled from 400 to 800 pounds.So a bump *** setting of 1in and a
>SRH of 1in will give the car an extra 400 pounds to each individual
>spring rate.It makes sense now since even though the suspension is
>always riding the bump ***s,the bump ***s act like 400pound
>springs.I was questioning the physics model since I thought that
>riding on the bump ***s would give no play at all but now know they
>act like hard springs.This is why we still get the car movement but it
>doesnt scrape unless you slam the chassis down.It all makes sense now
>to me.I wish someone who worked on GPL would of answered our questions
>on this topic.
> DA says that the only thing that allows this lowrider bug is the
>fact that GPL doesnt model high speed bumps.With realistic bumps
>modeled we would never ever be able to ride the bump stops since the
>car would be launching off the bumps.So I agrre with everyone here
>that says that GPL should not allow SRH below 2.5in.Hopefully patch
>1.1 will take away the ability to go below 2.5inSRH or even better,add
>high speed bumps:)))))
>I know that Im dreaming here.
>Skeeter
>>Hi Skeet,
>>Well, I'll take my best shot at these below...
>>> Does lowering the ride height also lower the travel a suspension
>>> system has.
>>Yes, but like you say, the two are not always linear, that is suspension
>>travel=ride height in a 1-1 relationship.
>>Many race car performance books I have read state that its
>>> bad to lower ride height by shortening the springs.They write that
>>> your better off lowering with low profile tires.But they are talking
>>> about streetcars.
>>Yeah, this again is related to suspension travel. If you lower the
>>suspension only by the springs, you will get a much reduced shock
>>travel. Shocks don't like to be bottomed, and if you have them in too
>>narrow a range of motion than which they were designed for, then you
>>will lose the benefits of the progressive valving most shocks are
>>designed for. Race shocks, like F1 and Indycar and even to a certain
>>extent Nascar (which usually have more suspension travel than the other
>>two), have a very limited range of motion, but this is designed into the
>>shock so that it *works* properly in this limited range.
>>>How are the cars in GPL lowered.Do race cars have a
>>> way to lower the ride height other then lowering the spring length and
>>> low profile tires?
>>Well, sometimes (Nascar especially) they can relocate mounting points...
>>but most if not all high-performance coil-over race shocks have threaded
>>spring perches and can *turn* these perches up and down to alter height.
>>The length of the spring is the same, but it is just moved up or down
>>the shock body.
>>> I have actually measured the spring length at the rear shock when I
>>> use a 1in and a 5in ride height and its exactly the same.
>>What car is this with? (just curious)
>>>This is why I > feel that with a car that is 1inch off the floor and a suspension that
>>> can give much more movement then just 1in ,the car will scrape the tub
>>> constantly.
>>Yep. Which is when you want to raise the car to prevent it or stiffen
>>springs.
>>>I have my car in GPL at 1inride height,1in bump stops and
>>> soft springs and shocks.When I slam the brakes or acclerate hard I can
>>> see in plain view that my tub bottoms onto the ground.But there is no
>>> sparks or handling imbalance.Only when I really slam the tub into the
>>> ground does it happen.
>>Yep, I notice this to be true too. But it can happen at certain places,
>>like corner 1 at Kyalami under braking if the shock/springs aren't
>>right, as it can at Eau Rouge.
>>Hope it helps.
>>--Dave
>>> skeeter
>>> >Hi Bruce...
>>> >I agree that the *possiblity* shouldn't be there. Papy screwed up on
>>> >allowing sub 2-3" ride heights... they could've just bottomed the scale
>>> >(like they do now at 1") at 2 or 3 or 6 inches...
>>> >But now that it's here... tough to change. Unless... unless the 1.1
>>> >patch changed this. They also would have to make 1" SRH setups *illegal*
>>> >in the game by creating some sort of error message if they tried to be
>>> >loaded. People with tons of setup time might be mad, but their basic
>>> >spring/shock/bar combo wouldn't be too far off if they had to raise
>>> >them. they'd be in the right ballpark.
>>> >If this was to happen, then they would also have to make 1.1-patched
>>> >hosts or clients only be able to connect to each other. 1.0 clients
>>> >could still run the 1" SRHs, therefore being unfair to anyone with the
>>> >1.1 patch.
>>> >NOW! This is all a wish list... we'll have to wait until the blokes from
>>> >Papy give this thing to us before we see what 1.1 does for us! :-)
>>> >--Dave
>>> >> Utterly ridiculous that it's possible to reduce the ride height of any
>>> >> of the GPL cars to this ludicrous measurement. None of them should be
>>> >> less than 4.5 inches off the ground. None.
>>> >> > 1" ride height does not imply that the car is riding on the bump ***s.
>>> >> > that would be the distance between the undercarraige and the ground.
>>> >> > Theoretically you could have the "tub" sitting on the ground and still have
>>> >> > LOTS of clearance between the suspension, and the bump ***.
>>> >> > JMO
>>> >> > TK
>>> >> --
>>> >> Regards,
>>> >> Bruce.
>>> >> ----------
>>> >> HMRC Web site address is:-
>>> >> http://www.racesimcentral.net/
>>> >> ----------
>>> >--
>>> >Dave Schwabe
>>> >The Aussie Toad -- Grand Prix Legends & Brabham site
>>> >http://www.racesimcentral.net/~schwabe
>>--
>>Dave Schwabe
>>The Aussie Toad -- Grand Prix Legends & Brabham site
>>http://www.racesimcentral.net/~schwabe
