rec.autos.simulators

by **Chad Roger** » Fri, 16 Jul 1999 04:00:00

I've been driving Allison's Ferrari setups lately which are all set at 3.5 I
think.

Chad Rogers

>Before abyone calls me a "low-rider" ... all my setups (even pre 1.1) are
and
>were above 1" ... more like 2 - 2.5" and I'm more than happy to have my
cars
>at 2.5". Anyway, the reasoun I'm not happy with the new minimum ride-height
>for GPL (2.5") is because now everyone will be a "low-rider". I can't think
of
>any reason why anyone would set their car up any higher that the minimum
>heigh now?? Why would you?

>With the min. ride height at 1" at least there was some gain (or detrement)
to
>going lower or higher. I tried to get the car as low as possible without
>compromising the suspension. Now I just set it at 2.5" and that's it ...
there
>is no finding the "optimal" ride eight anymore.

>I know that with the 1" ride height you could create a "low-rider" setup
and
>that was probably the quickest way around a lap ... though the low-rider
>setups are nowhere as forgiving as something a little bit taller. I don't
know
>why didn't Papyrus just insruduce some "random" (yep random) noise into the
>road surface as the ride height gets lower - to the point that at 1" it is
>practically undrivable and at 2.5" the random noise is non-existant. This
way
>you would still have the "option" to have any ride height you want, there
>would be such thing as "optimal" ride height and the "low-riders" would not
be
>fast because the car would be impossible to drive. Isn't this a more
"sound"
>solution that should not be too hard to implement?

>Regards,
>David Mocnay

by **David Mocn** » Sat, 17 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Before abyone calls me a "low-rider" ... all my setups (even pre 1.1) are and
were above 1" ... more like 2 - 2.5" and I'm more than happy to have my cars
at 2.5". Anyway, the reasoun I'm not happy with the new minimum ride-height
for GPL (2.5") is because now everyone will be a "low-rider". I can't think of
any reason why anyone would set their car up any higher that the minimum
heigh now?? Why would you?

With the min. ride height at 1" at least there was some gain (or detrement) to
going lower or higher. I tried to get the car as low as possible without
compromising the suspension. Now I just set it at 2.5" and that's it ... there
is no finding the "optimal" ride eight anymore.

I know that with the 1" ride height you could create a "low-rider" setup and
that was probably the quickest way around a lap ... though the low-rider
setups are nowhere as forgiving as something a little bit taller. I don't know
why didn't Papyrus just insruduce some "random" (yep random) noise into the
road surface as the ride height gets lower - to the point that at 1" it is
practically undrivable and at 2.5" the random noise is non-existant. This way
you would still have the "option" to have any ride height you want, there
would be such thing as "optimal" ride height and the "low-riders" would not be
fast because the car would be impossible to drive. Isn't this a more "sound"
solution that should not be too hard to implement?

Regards,
David Mocnay

by **David Mocn** » Sat, 17 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Cool, though if you stat fiddling with setups yourself you'll probably notice
that you want to get the car as low as posssible without sacrificing the
performance of the suspension. For me (and probably most setup wizes) this is
at most 2.5". Which is my point ... why would I (or anyone else) want to go
any higher?

regards,
David Mocnay

>I've been driving Allison's Ferrari setups lately which are all set at 3.5 I
>think.

>Chad Rogers

>>Before abyone calls me a "low-rider" ... all my setups (even pre 1.1) are
>and
>>were above 1" ... more like 2 - 2.5" and I'm more than happy to have my
>cars
>>at 2.5". Anyway, the reasoun I'm not happy with the new minimum ride-height
>>for GPL (2.5") is because now everyone will be a "low-rider". I can't think
>of
>>any reason why anyone would set their car up any higher that the minimum
>>heigh now?? Why would you?

>>With the min. ride height at 1" at least there was some gain (or detrement)
>to
>>going lower or higher. I tried to get the car as low as possible without
>>compromising the suspension. Now I just set it at 2.5" and that's it ...
>there
>>is no finding the "optimal" ride eight anymore.

>>I know that with the 1" ride height you could create a "low-rider" setup
>and
>>that was probably the quickest way around a lap ... though the low-rider
>>setups are nowhere as forgiving as something a little bit taller. I don't
>know
>>why didn't Papyrus just insruduce some "random" (yep random) noise into the
>>road surface as the ride height gets lower - to the point that at 1" it is
>>practically undrivable and at 2.5" the random noise is non-existant. This
>way
>>you would still have the "option" to have any ride height you want, there
>>would be such thing as "optimal" ride height and the "low-riders" would not
>be
>>fast because the car would be impossible to drive. Isn't this a more
>"sound"
>>solution that should not be too hard to implement?

>>Regards,
>>David Mocnay

by **Stephen Barnet** » Sat, 17 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Hi David
I race mostly off-line. A particular pleasure I get from GPL is to recreate
the setups, cars, graphics etc etc, that relate to 1967. So, ride heights
lower than 3.5 inch do not come into the equation. This may mean that my lap
times are not the fastest I could do if I artificially put then at 2.5 inch,
but the higher setups offer a challenge in themselves. Likewise the extreme
'toe' settings don't get a look in. So if I can do Monza in 1.29.65 it is
done with the pleasure of knowing that the set-up has some connection with
'real life' (yes I know, its only a 'game'). Equally 'fastest laps' don't
mean a damn thing unless done in a race.
Steve

I can't think of

by **Jan Verschuere** » Sat, 17 Jul 1999 04:00:00

You're compromising the suspension at 2.5".

I used to be in that range as well, but since Allison's article (note, not
the setups... they don't suit my driving style) showed me the way, I find
3.75" to be the bare minimum.

Of course, you're obviously talented enough to catch the car when it tries
to throw you out of the seat (since you can drive the low rideheight
consistently), but you're making it unnecessarily hard for yourself. You can
go just as fast, if not faster when you crank it up to the 4" range and it
makes for a helluva lot easier ride. Got to make some other adjustments,
mind. I, for example, find I need a bigger "gap" between front and rear ARB

Since making the change I've managed to finish a couple of GP length races,
whereas before I couldn't maintain concentration to keep on fighting the
car. Now on to the next step... actually beating the top AI. <G>

Jan.
------
New motto: "Keep yer foot in it at T1"

>Before abyone calls me a "low-rider" ... all my setups (even pre 1.1) are
and
><snip>

by **Jesse Blac** » Sat, 17 Jul 1999 04:00:00

because it drives much nicer up higher. You hit a rumble strip or run off
the road or make contact with a car which lifts you off the ground and you
dont notice it. You can drive over your head and not lose momentum. For
you hot lappers it may not be good but people that actually RACE, it is nice
to have a consistent driveable setup.

Jesse Black

>Cool, though if you stat fiddling with setups yourself you'll probably
notice
>that you want to get the car as low as posssible without sacrificing the
>performance of the suspension. For me (and probably most setup wizes) this
is
>at most 2.5". Which is my point ... why would I (or anyone else) want to go
>any higher?

>regards,
>David Mocnay

>>I've been driving Allison's Ferrari setups lately which are all set at 3.5
I
>>think.

>>Chad Rogers

>>>Before abyone calls me a "low-rider" ... all my setups (even pre 1.1) are
>>and
>>>were above 1" ... more like 2 - 2.5" and I'm more than happy to have my
>>cars
>>>at 2.5". Anyway, the reasoun I'm not happy with the new minimum
ride-height
>>>for GPL (2.5") is because now everyone will be a "low-rider". I can't
think
>>of
>>>any reason why anyone would set their car up any higher that the minimum
>>>heigh now?? Why would you?

>>>With the min. ride height at 1" at least there was some gain (or
detrement)
>>to
>>>going lower or higher. I tried to get the car as low as possible without
>>>compromising the suspension. Now I just set it at 2.5" and that's it ...
>>there
>>>is no finding the "optimal" ride eight anymore.

>>>I know that with the 1" ride height you could create a "low-rider" setup
>>and
>>>that was probably the quickest way around a lap ... though the low-rider
>>>setups are nowhere as forgiving as something a little bit taller. I don't
>>know
>>>why didn't Papyrus just insruduce some "random" (yep random) noise into
the
>>>road surface as the ride height gets lower - to the point that at 1" it
is
>>>practically undrivable and at 2.5" the random noise is non-existant. This
>>way
>>>you would still have the "option" to have any ride height you want, there
>>>would be such thing as "optimal" ride height and the "low-riders" would
not
>>be
>>>fast because the car would be impossible to drive. Isn't this a more
>>"sound"
>>>solution that should not be too hard to implement?

>>>Regards,
>>>David Mocnay

by **Ruud van Ga** » Sat, 17 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Because higher setups are more forgiving; they don't hit the bump
stops so much so they are better drivable, which is a plus for racing
setups (NOT hotlaps).
You get to stay on the track longer, less spinning of.

>>I've been driving Allison's Ferrari setups lately which are all set at 3.5 I
>>think.

Ruud van Gaal
MarketGraph / MachTech: http://www.marketgraph.nl
Art: http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery

by **DAVI** » Sat, 17 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Well if the car is bottoming which happens to me at Zandvoort a lot I use
3.0" ride hieght even before patch. It made the car much easier to drive
fast since I was not trying to reel car back in at exits that were bumpy.
Also it helped at Mosport due to all the air I was getting and I was
braking later into the hairpin due to not bottoming the car out badly
there.

Dave

> >Cool, though if you stat fiddling with setups yourself you'll probably
notice
> >that you want to get the car as low as posssible without sacrificing the
> >performance of the suspension. For me (and probably most setup wizes)
this is
> >at most 2.5". Which is my point ... why would I (or anyone else) want to
go
> >any higher?

by **Antony Bower** » Sat, 17 Jul 1999 04:00:00

> Before abyone calls me a "low-rider" ... all my setups (even pre 1.1) are and
> were above 1" ... more like 2 - 2.5" and I'm more than happy to have my cars
> at 2.5". Anyway, the reasoun I'm not happy with the new minimum ride-height
> for GPL (2.5") is because now everyone will be a "low-rider". I can't think of
> any reason why anyone would set their car up any higher that the minimum
> heigh now?? Why would you?

Here's why: 2.5" ride height is almost undriveable for me. I think what
happens is that with this ride height you can come down *** the
bumpstops
in any significant bend. Now, you can learn to drive around the problem,
and probably still be fast, but I suggest going up to 4". The car is
much
easier to control, and the higher CofG can't cost more than a few
tenths, amply
compensated by the extra consistency.

I used to be a lowrider, and learned to deal with the twitchy
non-compliant
suspension. For me, at 2.5", the car (Brabham, usually) becomes
unpredictable.
Try it at Ste Devote: 4 times out of 5 you go around in a nice
controlled drift.
The 5th time you snap spin for no apparent reason. The higher ride
height
cures this completely.

Anton

--
Antony Bowers, Department of Computer Science, University of Bristol,
UK.
http://www.racesimcentral.net/~bowers/

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Sat, 17 Jul 1999 04:00:00

For historical accuracy.......which only appeals to a few.

by **Michael E. Carve** » Sat, 17 Jul 1999 04:00:00

% Cool, though if you stat fiddling with setups yourself you'll probably notice
% that you want to get the car as low as posssible without sacrificing the
% performance of the suspension. For me (and probably most setup wizes) this is
% at most 2.5". Which is my point ... why would I (or anyone else) want to go
% any higher?

This is just my opinion, so flame away if you must....

Low Rider setups (and even most 2.5" setups at most tracks), are simply
masking one's inablility to properly setup a car. There I said it.
Don't get me wrong, Wolfie is probably one of the most talented
low-rider setter-uppers I have had the pleasure to use setups from.

However, the lower you set your ride-height, the more you mask the flaws
in settings such as rebounds, camber, springs, ARB, clutches, ramp, etc.

It takes true talent to setup a car at higher ride heights and achieve
the same or comparable times. At low ride heights the minor/major
modifications to the numerious setup options are masked or simply
elminated.

I am pretty sure that Greger is slowly coming to this conclusion and
probably Wolfie as well.

Let me repeat that again, low-rider setups are kludges for a poorly
setup "race" car.

--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

by **Tim** » Sat, 17 Jul 1999 04:00:00

David,

Just to let you know, here are my ride heights used now: (all honda)
Spa - 2.5/2.5 - 3:18 PB - 3:19 race pace
Monza - 2.5/2.75 - 1:29 PB - 1:29 rp
Zandvoort - 2.75/2.75 - 1:25 PB - 1:26(low) rp
Mosport - 2.75/3.0 - 1:23(low) PB - 1:24 rp
Brands Hatch - 3.0/3.0 - 1:36 PB - 1:37 rp

I haven't really tested anywhere else yet.

Tim
http://underworld.fortunecity.com/arcadia/509/index.htm

by **Thomas J.S. Brow** » Sun, 18 Jul 1999 04:00:00

I couldn't agree more with you....hats off to you sir!

TJSB

> This is just my opinion, so flame away if you must....

> Low Rider setups (and even most 2.5" setups at most tracks), are simply
> masking one's inablility to properly setup a car. There I said it.
> Don't get me wrong, Wolfie is probably one of the most talented
> low-rider setter-uppers I have had the pleasure to use setups from.

> However, the lower you set your ride-height, the more you mask the flaws
> in settings such as rebounds, camber, springs, ARB, clutches, ramp, etc.

> It takes true talent to setup a car at higher ride heights and achieve
> the same or comparable times. At low ride heights the minor/major
> modifications to the numerious setup options are masked or simply
> elminated.

> I am pretty sure that Greger is slowly coming to this conclusion and
> probably Wolfie as well.

> Let me repeat that again, low-rider setups are kludges for a poorly
> setup "race" car.

> --
> **************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
> Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.

> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

by **Greger Hut** » Sun, 18 Jul 1999 04:00:00

On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 15:12:15 GMT, "Michael E. Carver"

>% Cool, though if you stat fiddling with setups yourself you'll probably notice
>% that you want to get the car as low as posssible without sacrificing the
>% performance of the suspension. For me (and probably most setup wizes) this is
>% at most 2.5". Which is my point ... why would I (or anyone else) want to go
>% any higher?

>This is just my opinion, so flame away if you must....

>Low Rider setups (and even most 2.5" setups at most tracks), are simply
>masking one's inablility to properly setup a car. There I said it.
>Don't get me wrong, Wolfie is probably one of the most talented
>low-rider setter-uppers I have had the pleasure to use setups from.

>However, the lower you set your ride-height, the more you mask the flaws
>in settings such as rebounds, camber, springs, ARB, clutches, ramp, etc.

>It takes true talent to setup a car at higher ride heights and achieve
>the same or comparable times. At low ride heights the minor/major
>modifications to the numerious setup options are masked or simply
>elminated.

>I am pretty sure that Greger is slowly coming to this conclusion and
>probably Wolfie as well.

>Let me repeat that again, low-rider setups are kludges for a poorly
>setup "race" car.

Good comments Michael. Now with the 1.1 patch I've been tweaking the
setups more. Most of my testing I've done with the Ferrari, which
feels very good with the higher ride heights. I made a 2.5 inch setup
for Kyalami and with that setup I did a 1:19.14 in a race. I think
that's 0.1s faster than the WR driven with 1.0 version. I just hope it
isn't one of those 'slomo' times. Shouldn't be, because I have
constant 36fps and no other problems with the patch.

I sent the setup to couple of my friends and they liked the setup very
much, too. One actually improved his PB and said that you're going
fast even though it doesn't feel like it.

I don't know what happens if I set the ride height even higher, to 4
inch or close. Now I have to do some testing with the Lotus and see
how it handles with higher ride heights after tweaking the setups a
bit. I hope I can find a good setup for Mosport before this night's
race. :)

Really shame that we can't use the patch, though.

--
Greger Huttu

by **David Mocn** » Thu, 22 Jul 1999 04:00:00

That's the thing .... I'm not a hotlapper ... I'm a racer ... I set up my car
so that I'm as fast as possible while having a "stable" car. Personally I
found 2.5" to be the ceiling for all (maybe most) my setups.

I do agree that taller setups are more forgiving and handle bumps/curbs better
though, I found out that 99% of the time I can set the car up at 2.5" ride
height (or a little bit lower) and I don't bottom out and hanle the
curbs/bumps nicely. I don't see any extra "forgiveness" with an even taller
setup.

Regards,
David Mocnay

>because it drives much nicer up higher. You hit a rumble strip or run off
>the road or make contact with a car which lifts you off the ground and you
>dont notice it. You can drive over your head and not lose momentum. For
>you hot lappers it may not be good but people that actually RACE, it is nice
>to have a consistent driveable setup.

>Jesse Black

>>Cool, though if you stat fiddling with setups yourself you'll probably
>notice
>>that you want to get the car as low as posssible without sacrificing the
>>performance of the suspension. For me (and probably most setup wizes) this
>is
>>at most 2.5". Which is my point ... why would I (or anyone else) want to go
>>any higher?

>>regards,
>>David Mocnay

>>>I've been driving Allison's Ferrari setups lately which are all set at 3.5
>I
>>>think.

>>>Chad Rogers

>>>>Before abyone calls me a "low-rider" ... all my setups (even pre 1.1) are
>>>and
>>>>were above 1" ... more like 2 - 2.5" and I'm more than happy to have my
>>>cars
>>>>at 2.5". Anyway, the reasoun I'm not happy with the new minimum
>ride-height
>>>>for GPL (2.5") is because now everyone will be a "low-rider". I can't
>think
>>>of
>>>>any reason why anyone would set their car up any higher that the minimum
>>>>heigh now?? Why would you?

>>>>With the min. ride height at 1" at least there was some gain (or
>detrement)
>>>to
>>>>going lower or higher. I tried to get the car as low as possible without
>>>>compromising the suspension. Now I just set it at 2.5" and that's it ...
>>>there
>>>>is no finding the "optimal" ride eight anymore.

>>>>I know that with the 1" ride height you could create a "low-rider" setup
>>>and
>>>>that was probably the quickest way around a lap ... though the low-rider
>>>>setups are nowhere as forgiving as something a little bit taller. I don't
>>>know
>>>>why didn't Papyrus just insruduce some "random" (yep random) noise into
>the
>>>>road surface as the ride height gets lower - to the point that at 1" it
>is
>>>>practically undrivable and at 2.5" the random noise is non-existant. This
>>>way
>>>>you would still have the "option" to have any ride height you want, there
>>>>would be such thing as "optimal" ride height and the "low-riders" would
>not
>>>be
>>>>fast because the car would be impossible to drive. Isn't this a more
>>>"sound"
>>>>solution that should not be too hard to implement?

>>>>Regards,
>>>>David Mocnay

rec.autos.simulators

Not too happy about 2.5" ride geight in GPL....

Not too happy about 2.5" ride geight in GPL....

Not too happy about 2.5" ride geight in GPL....

Not too happy about 2.5" ride geight in GPL....

Not too happy about 2.5" ride geight in GPL....

Not too happy about 2.5" ride geight in GPL....

Not too happy about 2.5" ride geight in GPL....

Not too happy about 2.5" ride geight in GPL....

Not too happy about 2.5" ride geight in GPL....

Not too happy about 2.5" ride geight in GPL....

Not too happy about 2.5" ride geight in GPL....

Not too happy about 2.5" ride geight in GPL....

Not too happy about 2.5" ride geight in GPL....

Not too happy about 2.5" ride geight in GPL....

Not too happy about 2.5" ride geight in GPL....

Not too happy about 2.5" ride geight in GPL....