rec.autos.simulators

by **Doug Gordo** » Mon, 25 Jan 1999 04:00:00

I've noticed a number of "no Lotus" races on VROC lately, and can understand
why there might be this request. Some may ask why the game has a car that is
apparently so superior. Well, if you're running in long Pro or GP races, it
really is not as superior as you might think because of its lack of
reliability. Lotuses can tend to blow engines, and in a Pro or better race
that ends your day. Twitchy handling can also put you into an accident that
puts you out. But in novice or intermediate, or with a shorter race length,
they are less likely to blow and then do have a significant performance
advantage.

--
Doug Gordon
(remove "nospam" from e-mail address)

by **Wosc** » Mon, 25 Jan 1999 04:00:00

I dont find the handling bad oin the lotus and realisticly, tell me how
often someone blows their engine in a lotus in a long race. In all of my
pro long races ive be in, my brabham and ferrari has blown up more times
than any lotii i have seen. If you shift a hundred RPM below you normally
do, it is still just as fast and more reliable. I think that the lotus is
too reliable. I think in the next patch, the lotus should have much less
reliability. I barely ever finished a race in 67 and i think the
reliability needs to be changed for short and long races so in a short
sprint, it still has a high chance of not finishing. One of the races i was
in in which a lotus blew, he was leading by a fair margin and when 2nd place
(a ferrari) commented about him winning, the leader just said, oh the engine
blew so it wasnt my fault, i should have won and everyone accepted it. So
even when the lotus dies, everyone doesnt realise what happened but just say
that person was a winner but because his car failed him. With a less
reliable lotus, it would still be used for hot laps but in races it wold be
more even.
THats what i think atleast. Others think differently. Express them to me
but maybe not in the form of a flame. I didnt mean for this to be a flame
if anyonme interpreted it as that.
Wosco

by **Roo** » Mon, 25 Jan 1999 04:00:00

On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 10:49:04 -0500, "Doug Gordon"

>I've noticed a number of "no Lotus" races on VROC lately, and can understand
>why there might be this request.

I think it is stupid. What is the second best car? An eagle maybe? How
about a blue grid rather than green? Does it make any difference?

by **buzar** » Mon, 25 Jan 1999 04:00:00

One of the problems is that "newbies" that have not played the game long
enough to be able to stay on the track, all seem to jump into the Lotus
because it is the fastest! You see a lot of green and yellow cars doing a lot
of off road work. Of course in the hands of a good driver the Lotus is
fast and controllable. In this case it is not so much the car as the fact it
does seem to attract a bad crowd.

buzard

> I've noticed a number of "no Lotus" races on VROC lately, and can understand
> why there might be this request. Some may ask why the game has a car that is
> apparently so superior. Well, if you're running in long Pro or GP races, it
> really is not as superior as you might think because of its lack of
> reliability. Lotuses can tend to blow engines, and in a Pro or better race
> that ends your day. Twitchy handling can also put you into an accident that
> puts you out. But in novice or intermediate, or with a shorter race length,
> they are less likely to blow and then do have a significant performance
> advantage.

> --
> Doug Gordon
> (remove "nospam" from e-mail address)

by **Wosc** » Mon, 25 Jan 1999 04:00:00

yes it does, as i heard it from a friend, the lotus is CHEAP. you get in,
drive it 2 seconds faster than any other car and look fast, but anyone can
look fast in a lotus. And the reliability makes up for it. What all the
people on vroc wants are real drivers, not fake ones that drive lotii to
look fast but that drive the brm and still are fast or the coventry. They
dont want cheap drivers driving the lotus and showing off nothing, if you
drive another car, and are fast, then you show your true driving skills, the
lotus just makes everyone look good.
At least thats what i think
Wosco

>On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 10:49:04 -0500, "Doug Gordon"

>>I've noticed a number of "no Lotus" races on VROC lately, and can
understand
>>why there might be this request.

>I think it is stupid. What is the second best car? An eagle maybe? How
>about a blue grid rather than green? Does it make any difference?

by **Wosc** » Mon, 25 Jan 1999 04:00:00

actually that is a sensible thing to ask for i believe. Now if you ask me,
you should go do your non constructive ranting on those people wanting hail
bails to throw hay when you hit them and all that stuff, it isnt DUMB, its
just not necessary and not needed. The lotus thing isnt needed and
obviously you drive the lotus cause yo cant drive another car fast (poor
you) but it is something that would be nice if it were there.
Wosco

by **Ben** » Tue, 26 Jan 1999 04:00:00

Damn you! Another papy patch wisher/lotus hater! Why don't you just take
your ranting and whining somewhere dark and sit in the corner!

Ben

PS: <tic>

>I dont find the handling bad oin the lotus and realisticly, tell me how
>often someone blows their engine in a lotus in a long race. In all of my
>pro long races ive be in, my brabham and ferrari has blown up more times
>than any lotii i have seen. If you shift a hundred RPM below you normally
>do, it is still just as fast and more reliable. I think that the lotus is
>too reliable. I think in the next patch, the lotus should have much less
>reliability. I barely ever finished a race in 67 and i think the
>reliability needs to be changed for short and long races so in a short
>sprint, it still has a high chance of not finishing. One of the races i
was
>in in which a lotus blew, he was leading by a fair margin and when 2nd
place
>(a ferrari) commented about him winning, the leader just said, oh the
engine
>blew so it wasnt my fault, i should have won and everyone accepted it. So
>even when the lotus dies, everyone doesnt realise what happened but just
say
>that person was a winner but because his car failed him. With a less
>reliable lotus, it would still be used for hot laps but in races it wold be
>more even.
>THats what i think atleast. Others think differently. Express them to me
>but maybe not in the form of a flame. I didnt mean for this to be a flame
>if anyonme interpreted it as that.
>Wosco

>>I've noticed a number of "no Lotus" races on VROC lately, and can
>understand
>>why there might be this request. Some may ask why the game has a car that
>is
>>apparently so superior. Well, if you're running in long Pro or GP races,
it
>>really is not as superior as you might think because of its lack of
>>reliability. Lotuses can tend to blow engines, and in a Pro or better race
>>that ends your day. Twitchy handling can also put you into an accident
that
>>puts you out. But in novice or intermediate, or with a shorter race
length,
>>they are less likely to blow and then do have a significant performance
>>advantage.

>>--
>>Doug Gordon
>>(remove "nospam" from e-mail address)

by **Ron Ayto** » Tue, 26 Jan 1999 04:00:00

I tend to agree with you Wosco, i also don't find the Lotus handling
bad. In fact i think it is one of the easiest and most stable cars in
GPL, in fact to me, it would be a toss up between the Lotus or the
Coventry to which one i find the easiest to drive.
I am using the Brabham at the moment in our on-line league, but i
always feel more secure under braking in the Lotus than i do in the
Brabham.
I used to use the Lotus all the time, and my times in the Lotus eclipse
all of my times i have achieved at the same tracks in the Brabham.
I guess i have put a couple hundred of driving hours into GPL by now,
and a large percentage of that was in the Lotus, and the only times i
have ever blown it up was in qualifying, where i have been pushing the
redline harder than i do normally. In race trim, using Pro Long
setttings and driving sensibly, i have only destroyed the engine once,
and that was because i missed a gear..
So to reiterate, i agree, the Lotus should be a little less reliable,
but it should still be capable of seeing out full length races if
driven sensibly and not abused too much.
Cheers,
Ron

> I dont find the handling bad oin the lotus and realisticly, tell me
how
> often someone blows their engine in a lotus in a long race. In all
of my
> pro long races ive be in, my brabham and ferrari has blown up more
times
> than any lotii i have seen. If you shift a hundred RPM below you
normally
> do, it is still just as fast and more reliable. I think that the
lotus is
> too reliable. I think in the next patch, the lotus should have much
less
> reliability. I barely ever finished a race in 67 and i think the
> reliability needs to be changed for short and long races so in a
short
> sprint, it still has a high chance of not finishing. One of the
races i was
> in in which a lotus blew, he was leading by a fair margin and when
2nd place
> (a ferrari) commented about him winning, the leader just said, oh the
engine
> blew so it wasnt my fault, i should have won and everyone accepted
it. So
> even when the lotus dies, everyone doesnt realise what happened but
just say
> that person was a winner but because his car failed him. With a less
> reliable lotus, it would still be used for hot laps but in races it
wold be
> more even.
> THats what i think atleast. Others think differently. Express them
to me
> but maybe not in the form of a flame. I didnt mean for this to be a
flame
> if anyonme interpreted it as that.
> Wosco

> >I've noticed a number of "no Lotus" races on VROC lately, and can
> understand
> >why there might be this request. Some may ask why the game has a car
that
> is
> >apparently so superior. Well, if you're running in long Pro or GP
races, it
> >really is not as superior as you might think because of its lack of
> >reliability. Lotuses can tend to blow engines, and in a Pro or
better race
> >that ends your day. Twitchy handling can also put you into an
accident that
> >puts you out. But in novice or intermediate, or with a shorter race
length,
> >they are less likely to blow and then do have a significant
performance
> >advantage.

> >--
> >Doug Gordon
> >(remove "nospam" from e-mail address)

by **Paul Jone** » Tue, 26 Jan 1999 04:00:00

I'm way off fast in any car, but, like setups it seems to me to be a lot to
do with how you drive. I learnt the little I know about GPL in the Eagle
because I found it easier to drive than the Lotus, and feel completely at
home in it at Monza. Now I can't get the Lotus within half a second of my
meagre Eagle times. Yeah, in the hands of the best you may be able to
squeeze a little extra from the Lotus over the Eagle but I bet Ian Lake and
crew can beat me with many seconds to spare in a Coventry whatever I drive.
I think it's great that all the cars behave differently - it makes the thing
more realistic - the Lotus-Ford 49 was a world beater and why wouldn't we
all want to drive it?
You're all missing the point of a lot of the spec racing that's been
happening lately. It's not because anyone hates Lotuses or Lotus drivers,
it's just good fun to take a Coventry or whatever, that very few people in
the race have driven and have a go. It's just fun, simply that, fun, don't
take it personally.
As regards Honda failing to licence their car - I wouldn't be surprised if
they said "provided you make it the best". Look at TOCA, where the Honda is
the best car in the simulated 1997 BTCC championship. The Renault swept to
an easy victory that year with the best car so why did Codemasters make the
Honda better? If this is true, then full marks to Papy for inventing the
Murasama and a black mark to Honda, or their marketing department, for being
too stuck up to publically admit that in racing, Hondas don't always come
first.
As regards blowing engines, I have blown them all, every single one, and
I've never once intended to.
Cheers,
Paul

>yes it does, as i heard it from a friend, the lotus is CHEAP. you get in,
>drive it 2 seconds faster than any other car and look fast, but anyone can
>look fast in a lotus. And the reliability makes up for it. What all the
>people on vroc wants are real drivers, not fake ones that drive lotii to
>look fast but that drive the brm and still are fast or the coventry. They
>dont want cheap drivers driving the lotus and showing off nothing, if you
>drive another car, and are fast, then you show your true driving skills,
the
>lotus just makes everyone look good.
>At least thats what i think
>Wosco

>>On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 10:49:04 -0500, "Doug Gordon"

>>>I've noticed a number of "no Lotus" races on VROC lately, and can
>understand
>>>why there might be this request.

>>I think it is stupid. What is the second best car? An eagle maybe? How
>>about a blue grid rather than green? Does it make any difference?

by **Ben Colema** » Tue, 26 Jan 1999 04:00:00

>I bet Ian Lake and

He certainly did this to me yesterday!

Ben

by **NanaKo** » Tue, 26 Jan 1999 04:00:00

How about having "class" races where EVERYONE drives....say a Coventry. Then
you'd really separate the "who's who" amongst the drivers.

Just a sugguestion...Nana

by **Andrew MacPhers** » Tue, 26 Jan 1999 04:00:00

Reliability is a tricky subject -- at least when we're talking about non-forced damage ie
impact/over-revving/tyre wear. Given the time a long race takes I'd hate to think any random
elements were involved in a failure rather than merely the way a driver had treated his car.
I'm not really sure that I want a sim to model the reliability of pit crews and components
rather than the driver's skill.... which is still a bigger factor IMO than what car you're driving.

Andrew McP

by **schwab** » Tue, 26 Jan 1999 04:00:00

Andy,

I'd have to say I'd agree. I think the Lotus and Eagle blow SOONER when
overrevved than the Brabham, for instance, and that should be enough. If
you overstep the bounds, you should pay for it. Not just a random BOOM
when you're shifting 500 or 1000 revs below redline. (and I'm a Brabham
driver)

-Dave schwabe
"if you're in control, you're not going fast enough," -- Parnelli Jones.

> > I think in the next patch, the lotus should
> > have much less reliability.

> Reliability is a tricky subject -- at least when we're talking about non-forced damage ie
> impact/over-revving/tyre wear. Given the time a long race takes I'd hate to think any random
> elements were involved in a failure rather than merely the way a driver had treated his car.
> I'm not really sure that I want a sim to model the reliability of pit crews and components
> rather than the driver's skill.... which is still a bigger factor IMO than what car you're driving.

> Andrew McP

by **Paul Jone** » Tue, 26 Jan 1999 04:00:00

I think that's what's going on, Nana,
Cheers,
Paul

> How about having "class" races where EVERYONE drives....say a Coventry. Then
> you'd really separate the "who's who" amongst the drivers.

> Just a sugguestion...Nana

by **Paul Jone** » Tue, 26 Jan 1999 04:00:00

But I love the sensation of overrevving, especially in the Eagle. Too bad that it can't take it but worth
it all the same :-)
Cheers,
Paul

> Andy,

> I'd have to say I'd agree. I think the Lotus and Eagle blow SOONER when
> overrevved than the Brabham, for instance, and that should be enough. If
> you overstep the bounds, you should pay for it. Not just a random BOOM
> when you're shifting 500 or 1000 revs below redline. (and I'm a Brabham
> driver)

> -Dave schwabe
> "if you're in control, you're not going fast enough," -- Parnelli Jones.

> > > I think in the next patch, the lotus should
> > > have much less reliability.

> > Reliability is a tricky subject -- at least when we're talking about non-forced damage ie
> > impact/over-revving/tyre wear. Given the time a long race takes I'd hate to think any random
> > elements were involved in a failure rather than merely the way a driver had treated his car.
> > I'm not really sure that I want a sim to model the reliability of pit crews and components
> > rather than the driver's skill.... which is still a bigger factor IMO than what car you're driving.

> > Andrew McP

rec.autos.simulators

GPL "No Lotus" races

GPL "No Lotus" races

GPL "No Lotus" races

GPL "No Lotus" races

GPL "No Lotus" races

GPL "No Lotus" races

GPL "No Lotus" races

GPL "No Lotus" races

GPL "No Lotus" races

GPL "No Lotus" races

GPL "No Lotus" races

GPL "No Lotus" races

GPL "No Lotus" races

GPL "No Lotus" races

GPL "No Lotus" races

GPL "No Lotus" races