rec.autos.simulators

by **Uwe Schürkam** » Sat, 03 Jul 2004 17:56:49

> Hey Uwe, Klaus Graf (sp?) had a pretty good run at Sears. Hopefully he is
> going to run more Nextel races. As tough a nut is Nascar Cup is to break
> into I was pretty impressed all around with KG.

> Mitch

Spelling is right on, Mitch, and yes, it's refreshing to see a german
driver in a NASCAR race. No wonder they let him have a go at a road
course first ;-)

Cheers,

uwe

--
mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox)
Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.racesimcentral.net/
Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E)
GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

by **J.D. Elli** » Sat, 03 Jul 2004 21:42:30

I believe he finished 2nd in an ARCA race at Nashville Superspeedway a
couple months ago.

-jde

by **Steve Smit** » Sat, 03 Jul 2004 23:20:57

The Brabham, with its hot-rodded Buick engine (originally a pushrod; later
w. sohc heads), was the slowest IN A STRAIGHT LINE; probably 10-15 mph
slower than the Eagle at, say, Spa or Monza. But its light weight and small
size gave it a terrific advantage in turns, particularly slow corners.

> On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 12:08:29 GMT, "Steve Smith"

> >Agreed. The Eagle is surprisingly difficult to drive...altho not as
finicky
> >as the twitchy Brabham. Gurney--who is NOT into sims, altho his son Alex
> >is--says the RW car was a dream to drive. It had an unusually long
> >wheelbase 'cuz Dan is so tall, and was particularly comfortable on long
> >tracks and fast bends. IMO, it is the least realistically modeled car in
> >GPL (altho the Brabham's ludicrous top speed always raises some
eyebrows).

> Hmm the Brab is about the slowest car as it is in GPL-you mean in
> real life it was even slower?

> John DiFool

by **Steve Smit** » Sat, 03 Jul 2004 23:23:16

Both the Brabham and the Eagle are harder to drive in GPL than in real life.
(Indeed, Dave Kaemmer once admitted to me that ALL the cars in GPL were
harder to drive than their RW counterparts.)

> > Agreed. The Eagle is surprisingly difficult to drive...altho not as
finicky
> > as the twitchy Brabham.

> Agree on the latter, advice to change your setup on the former ;)

> The Eagle is a relatively easy and forgiving car to drive in GPL,
> contrary to the Brabham, which is twitchy indeed. I used the Eagle as my
> basic 'learner car' without too much trouble (and I'm no alien) until I
> gradually moved onto Lotus and other motoring giants.

> > tracks and fast bends. IMO, it is the least realistically modeled car
in
> > GPL (altho the Brabham's ludicrous top speed always raises some
eyebrows).

> Hm, I've always thought the GPL Brabham mainly was probably a bit more
> twitchy than it probably was in real life... It's so on edge I'm having
> trouble anybody could drive that rig for 15 laps anywhere and not get in
> dire trouble. (I always thought Brabham built his cars for 'easy
> drifting', not 'drift and be likely to lose rear end on most occasions'.
> I can do that in the Ferrari more comfortably than the Brab...)

> But hey, what do I know. Gimme a real 67 car and I'll be happy to report
> the differences (from hospital, probably ;) .

> Regards, Rudy
> --------------------
> GPLRank: -22

by JP » Sun, 04 Jul 2004 00:19:10

I recall seeing Sentell say the same thing. Same can be said for the Nx
series.

by **Mitch_** » Sun, 04 Jul 2004 00:36:32

I bit of rain and he may have won ;)

. No wonder they let him have a go at a road

by **Steve Smit** » Sun, 04 Jul 2004 05:22:02

Don't agree. I've driven stock cars (admittedly 20 years ago) and they were
absolute beasts: no grip below about six or seven tenths (because 1. unless
you're very brave, you're not leaning on them hard enough to develop camber
thrust, and 2. them 'tars' take forever to warm up - this was on a road
course). Same thing for the brakes (which were still grotty even when they
WERE working). The *** felt like it was full of rocks. The steering
felt like it was connected to a very thin, whippy torsion bar. The
suspension felt like it had siezed. The shocks were skull-rattling. The
noise was unbearable. And the vibration blurred my vision like I'd smeared
peanut butter on my goggles.

The Cup cars in N2003 are ***cats by comparison.

(OTOH, NASCAR Racing before N4 was almost as undriveable as GPL, altho I
didn't think the stockers in NASCAR Legends felt anything like the 427-cu.
in. monsters I'd driven years before.)

> > Both the Brabham and the Eagle are harder to drive in GPL than in real
> life.
> > (Indeed, Dave Kaemmer once admitted to me that ALL the cars in GPL were
> > harder to drive than their RW counterparts.)

> I recall seeing Sentell say the same thing. Same can be said for the Nx
> series.

by JP » Sun, 04 Jul 2004 05:34:21

Well, since N03 is based on current stock cars, and not twenty year old
ones....<g> To me, the cup cars in 03 still got that "floating on air"
feeling, instead of driving something with mass, that all the papy nx games
had. Heat was the best at simulating this imo.

Do agree with your 04 and Legends comments.

> Don't agree. I've driven stock cars (admittedly 20 years ago) and they
were
> absolute beasts: no grip below about six or seven tenths (because 1.
unless
> you're very brave, you're not leaning on them hard enough to develop
camber
> thrust, and 2. them 'tars' take forever to warm up - this was on a road
> course). Same thing for the brakes (which were still grotty even when
they
> WERE working). The *** felt like it was full of rocks. The steering
> felt like it was connected to a very thin, whippy torsion bar. The
> suspension felt like it had siezed. The shocks were skull-rattling. The
> noise was unbearable. And the vibration blurred my vision like I'd
smeared
> peanut butter on my goggles.

> The Cup cars in N2003 are ***cats by comparison.

> (OTOH, NASCAR Racing before N4 was almost as undriveable as GPL, altho I
> didn't think the stockers in NASCAR Legends felt anything like the 427-cu.
> in. monsters I'd driven years before.)

> > > Both the Brabham and the Eagle are harder to drive in GPL than in real
> > life.
> > > (Indeed, Dave Kaemmer once admitted to me that ALL the cars in GPL
were
> > > harder to drive than their RW counterparts.)

> > I recall seeing Sentell say the same thing. Same can be said for the
Nx
> > series.

by **Magnus Svensso** » Sun, 04 Jul 2004 07:31:02

On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 14:20:57 GMT, "Steve Smith"

>The Brabham, with its hot-rodded Buick engine (originally a pushrod; later
>w. sohc heads), was the slowest IN A STRAIGHT LINE; probably 10-15 mph
>slower than the Eagle at, say, Spa or Monza. But its light weight and small
>size gave it a terrific advantage in turns, particularly slow corners.

How about the Cosworth DFV? I've heard from somewhere that the early
DFVs didn't have *anything* below 7000rpm. The GPL version seems to
pull like a John Deere from 4500...

by **Steve Smit** » Sun, 04 Jul 2004 08:16:46

My understanding is that the DFV had a robust mid-range--as modeled in the
sim--but this may not have been true of the early DFV (however unlikely -
the DFV has the same heads and breathing apparatus as the all-conquering F2
engines, two of which were mated on a common crank to create the V8).

> On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 14:20:57 GMT, "Steve Smith"

> >The Brabham, with its hot-rodded Buick engine (originally a pushrod;
later
> >w. sohc heads), was the slowest IN A STRAIGHT LINE; probably 10-15 mph
> >slower than the Eagle at, say, Spa or Monza. But its light weight and
small
> >size gave it a terrific advantage in turns, particularly slow corners.

> How about the Cosworth DFV? I've heard from somewhere that the early
> DFVs didn't have *anything* below 7000rpm. The GPL version seems to
> pull like a John Deere from 4500...

by **Ruud Dingeman** » Sun, 04 Jul 2004 16:08:27

>>>The Brabham, with its hot-rodded Buick engine (originally a pushrod; later
>>>w. sohc heads), was the slowest IN A STRAIGHT LINE; probably 10-15 mph

You mean there was anything on track actually slower in top speed than
the Cooper? That thing has about as much aero flow in GPL as a WWI tank...

(I'm surprised the Brab could then hang on to the Honda at Monza though,
even in slipstreamin' - one false move in 40 laps would then mean the
tow was gone and you'd be dead in the water..)

Regards, Rudy
--------------------
GPLRank: -22

by **Steve Smit** » Sun, 04 Jul 2004 20:32:38

Yes, the Italian GP was the high-point for the BT24. Everybody was amazed
it hung on...for lap after lap. Maybe had an overbore engine or hydrazine
or something. No explanation for it, actually.

> >>>The Brabham, with its hot-rodded Buick engine (originally a pushrod;
later
> >>>w. sohc heads), was the slowest IN A STRAIGHT LINE; probably 10-15 mph

> You mean there was anything on track actually slower in top speed than
> the Cooper? That thing has about as much aero flow in GPL as a WWI tank...

> (I'm surprised the Brab could then hang on to the Honda at Monza though,
> even in slipstreamin' - one false move in 40 laps would then mean the
> tow was gone and you'd be dead in the water..)

> Regards, Rudy
> --------------------
> GPLRank: -22

by **Ruud Dingeman** » Mon, 05 Jul 2004 15:16:49

> Yes, the Italian GP was the high-point for the BT24. Everybody was amazed
> it hung on...for lap after lap. Maybe had an overbore engine or hydrazine
> or something. No explanation for it, actually.

Well, going from GPL experiences, maybe just good driving - in the sim
it's possible at Monza to get in the Brab (which is still slower on top
speed than the Lotus, Eagle, Honda and probably Ferrari - I had some
trouble getting it to do a 1:29) and hang on behind a faster car if you
keep braking very late *and* if you nail Lesmo and Parabolica right
every time, thus keeping in the slipstream.

But as stated, one false move, lose the tow and you'd be dead in the
water. Which would mean Jack did just about everything right lap after
lap after lap in that particular race.

PS. People got *** with hydrazine back then? From what I read, that
stuff is *** - far worse than highly flammable petrol, real scary muck.

Regards, Rudy
--------------------
GPLRank: -22

by **Woodie8** » Mon, 05 Jul 2004 20:02:47

>> Yes, the Italian GP was the high-point for the BT24. Everybody was
>> amazed it hung on...for lap after lap. Maybe had an overbore engine
>> or hydrazine or something. No explanation for it, actually.

> Well, going from GPL experiences, maybe just good driving - in the sim
> it's possible at Monza to get in the Brab (which is still slower on
> top speed than the Lotus, Eagle, Honda and probably Ferrari - I had
> some trouble getting it to do a 1:29) and hang on behind a faster car
> if you keep braking very late *and* if you nail Lesmo and Parabolica
> right every time, thus keeping in the slipstream.

Hill's engine blew while he was one minute ahead of the second place car.
Clark went a lap down with a flat tire and was back in the lead when he ran
out of gas. The Brabham hung on to the Honda-Lola, a car making it's debut,
but was utterly outclassed by the Lotus.

rec.autos.simulators

Difference between GPL cars

Difference between GPL cars

Difference between GPL cars

Difference between GPL cars

Difference between GPL cars

Difference between GPL cars

Difference between GPL cars

Difference between GPL cars

Difference between GPL cars

Difference between GPL cars

Difference between GPL cars

Difference between GPL cars

Difference between GPL cars

Difference between GPL cars

Difference between GPL cars