rec.autos.simulators

LOW RIDERS MUST DIE

Racer

LOW RIDERS MUST DIE

by Racer » Fri, 29 Jan 1999 04:00:00

gpl low riders must die

Before going gold GPL allowed bump ***s of .5 in. This was raised because
low rider
setups were much faster. ie low center of gravity, less weight transference,
whatever.
Low riders run on bump stops. In reallity small road surface variants would
bounce
such a car making it undriveable. This was a release time RAS subject. GPL
does not model
small road surface variants. Thus, low riders are very fast in GPL and
riding at 1.0 in.
the lowest legal ride height.

This is a problem. 1967 cars didnt run on bump stops. I like to compare my
times to the
fast net guys. Im a 106 at watkins, 123 at mosport with the Ferrari. Not
Bad. I down
loaded some low riders and in 6 laps broke by best times. I wasnt even
trying too hard. I
was pissed off.

I dont like riding on bump stops. I like the realest sim possible. GPL. Low
riders take
advantage of the unmodeled road surface; its only physics flaw?. Its a lot
like CHEATING.
Now theres nothing to achieve. Make a low rider, learn to drive it and be
fast. Boring.
No more tweeking. I admire speedy net guys skill though.

Same thing happened with GP2. Low riders with packers longer than suspension
travel.
I never could figure that out. But it was fast and killed my fun in the
game.

Dave could maybe fix it. Add high speed vibation term, depending on speed,
that bump
***s cant damp. Not realistic but would***the low riders. Now finding
ride height
would be a challenge again.

In the race for fastest lap times low riders are winning big. By exploiting
the Flaw they
are putting up amazing times. The setups dont make sense for the era
modelled. Advice on
setups in 4WD and Doud Arano's rules of thumb are pointless. Whats to be
learned of that
era of racing technology? It doesnt apply because of a flaw.

Im writing to***off speedy net dudes, raise a fuss and get flamed. And
maybe Papyrus
can help.

Anyone..., Beuller.

PS

Sorry for negative post, I love GPL, been waiting since indycar for such
realism.

I know its in the game, but Papyrus isnt EA. Their better.

Jack

LOW RIDERS MUST DIE

by Jack » Fri, 29 Jan 1999 04:00:00

Agreed! Let's maintain the realism of GPL and hone our skills at realistic
ride heights.

Perhaps I'll develop an online utility that will serve as "tech inspection"
for on-line racers. Would anyone be interested in that?

Grit

LOW RIDERS MUST DIE

by Grit » Fri, 29 Jan 1999 04:00:00

     Agreed.

     They're cheatin'.   They know it.

     It's pathetic.

     I really hope they don't try to justify those
setups (to us OR themselves).   It would just
be too sad.

S.C. "Gritz" Petty
Spectre Racing
http://members.xoom.com/Gritz/Spectre/spectreracing.htm

Wosc

LOW RIDERS MUST DIE

by Wosc » Fri, 29 Jan 1999 04:00:00

That would kick ass, then you could have SPEC SETUP races and to make sure
everyone is using the right setup, you can check it in a utility.  Of course
it would be hard to get a utility like that to function properly but that
aint my job hehe.

>Agreed! Let's maintain the realism of GPL and hone our skills at realistic
>ride heights.

>Perhaps I'll develop an online utility that will serve as "tech inspection"
>for on-line racers. Would anyone be interested in that?

Jack

LOW RIDERS MUST DIE

by Jack » Fri, 29 Jan 1999 04:00:00

Yeah, you could do it a couple of different ways: everyone has the same
setup or setups fall in certain ranges.

Yikes. I'm starting to feel the need for a sanctioning body.

buzar

LOW RIDERS MUST DIE

by buzar » Fri, 29 Jan 1999 04:00:00

If you chose the Brabham and go to Monaco the default settings are .5
inch bump stops all around.

If you chose the Ferrari and go to Spa you also have .5 inch bump stops
all around.

Have you looked at the F2 and F3 setups?

Half inch bump stops are already programed into the game!

buzard


> gpl low riders must die

> Before going gold GPL allowed bump ***s of .5 in. This was raised because
> low rider
> setups were much faster. ie low center of gravity, less weight transference,
> whatever.
> Low riders run on bump stops. In reallity small road surface variants would
> bounce
> such a car making it undriveable. This was a release time RAS subject. GPL
> does not model
> small road surface variants. Thus, low riders are very fast in GPL and
> riding at 1.0 in.
> the lowest legal ride height.

> This is a problem. 1967 cars didnt run on bump stops. I like to compare my
> times to the
> fast net guys. Im a 106 at watkins, 123 at mosport with the Ferrari. Not
> Bad. I down
> loaded some low riders and in 6 laps broke by best times. I wasnt even
> trying too hard. I
> was pissed off.

> I dont like riding on bump stops. I like the realest sim possible. GPL. Low
> riders take
> advantage of the unmodeled road surface; its only physics flaw?. Its a lot
> like CHEATING.
> Now theres nothing to achieve. Make a low rider, learn to drive it and be
> fast. Boring.
> No more tweeking. I admire speedy net guys skill though.

> Same thing happened with GP2. Low riders with packers longer than suspension
> travel.
> I never could figure that out. But it was fast and killed my fun in the
> game.

> Dave could maybe fix it. Add high speed vibation term, depending on speed,
> that bump
> ***s cant damp. Not realistic but would***the low riders. Now finding
> ride height
> would be a challenge again.

> In the race for fastest lap times low riders are winning big. By exploiting
> the Flaw they
> are putting up amazing times. The setups dont make sense for the era
> modelled. Advice on
> setups in 4WD and Doud Arano's rules of thumb are pointless. Whats to be
> learned of that
> era of racing technology? It doesnt apply because of a flaw.

> Im writing to***off speedy net dudes, raise a fuss and get flamed. And
> maybe Papyrus
> can help.

> Anyone..., Beuller.

> PS

> Sorry for negative post, I love GPL, been waiting since indycar for such
> realism.

> I know its in the game, but Papyrus isnt EA. Their better.

Marc J.Nelso

LOW RIDERS MUST DIE

by Marc J.Nelso » Fri, 29 Jan 1999 04:00:00

Like Hawaii (not sure about NROS), a way of the host setting an "IROC"
switch to force others into line.  ;)


> >SPEC SETUP races and to make sure everyone is using the right setup

> Yeah, you could do it a couple of different ways: everyone has the same
> setup or setups fall in certain ranges.

> Yikes. I'm starting to feel the need for a sanctioning body.

--
Marc J. Nelson
SimRacing Online - http://www.simracing.com

* No animals were harmed in the making of this e-mail *

Ben

LOW RIDERS MUST DIE

by Ben » Sat, 30 Jan 1999 04:00:00

The more I think about things like this, the more I look forward to NASCAR
2000.  Let's face it, the net section of GPL was tacked on (quite well, I
think).  With NASCAR and the immense market for online racing in the US,
issues such as IROC and setup fixing are sure to be addressed.

And I don't even like NASCARs!

Ben


>Like Hawaii (not sure about NROS), a way of the host setting an "IROC"
>switch to force others into line.  ;)


>> >SPEC SETUP races and to make sure everyone is using the right setup

>> Yeah, you could do it a couple of different ways: everyone has the same
>> setup or setups fall in certain ranges.

>> Yikes. I'm starting to feel the need for a sanctioning body.

>--
>Marc J. Nelson
>SimRacing Online - http://www.simracing.com

>* No animals were harmed in the making of this e-mail *

Kev

LOW RIDERS MUST DIE

by Kev » Sat, 30 Jan 1999 04:00:00

Someone out there can probably embelish on the details, but i remember a
story about Allan Jones testing a Williams with *NO* suspension (yea yea I
know this wasn't in '67) his comments were something along the lines of  -
the car handled great but it was a bit rough to drive (Frank apparently
suggested he sit on his wallet for extra padding).  My point being a car on
a smooth track with little or no spring travel should be faster point to
point than on on a soft suspension. So use of this type of setup on a
traditionally smooth track it is not really cheating is it ??.

BTW - I am realy slow at GPL regarless of setup so dont think this post is
me trying to justify my setup choices .... maybe with another month or so
practice ......

Matthew Knutse

LOW RIDERS MUST DIE

by Matthew Knutse » Sat, 30 Jan 1999 04:00:00


> Someone out there can probably embelish on the details, but i remember a
> story about Allan Jones testing a Williams with *NO* suspension (yea yea I
> know this wasn't in '67) his comments were something along the lines of  -
> the car handled great but it was a bit rough to drive (Frank apparently
> suggested he sit on his wallet for extra padding).

LOL! Sounds like MR. Jones involved, yeah!

Quite right; but the issue is who has the setups and who don't..easy fix:
upload lo-ride susp. setups on a web page!
Look at todays cars: pushrod suspension with "no travel"; I can imagine from
looking at ( and pulling on various parts of ) a modern F1 car, that much of
the actual travel is from deflection in suspension arms and the "high-profile"
***?
Anyway, I think the matter of low setups isn't too important; I can do the same
lap-times
with different susp. height settings. As it was in those days, they usually
tweaked
the anti-roll bars and air pressure; the rest was left alone!
So who's cheating when they dart into the pits, and come back 5 secs later with
a new
gearbox setup? On the lotus, they had to change the whole box!!

You will be :-)

All best,

Matt

--
-----------------------------------------
Matthew Knutsen

"The Art of Legends" - GPL add-ons
http://www.racesimcentral.net/~kareknut/simrace1.htm
-----------------------------------------

schwab

LOW RIDERS MUST DIE

by schwab » Sat, 30 Jan 1999 04:00:00

Hey, first off, the setups are legal. Second, they are NOT running on
the bump stops. Just because the static ride height and the bumper
height is the same does NOT mean the car is on the bumpers.

How? Well, the bump *** is at the last 1 inch of SHOCK travel. Ride
height is a separate issue. I mean, the items in the setup menu say
"static ride height" and "bump *** height"... not "suspension
travel." So what you get is a low ride height that is NOT on the
bumpers. The suspension may have 2 inches of travel instead of 3, but
it's just that the ground clearance runs out before the suspension
travel does. Try a 1-inch ride height at Mosport and you'll see what I
mean. That is why the "low" setups are so stiff... so the suspension
doesn't move a ton and hit the stops. NO ONE CAN DRIVE FULLY ON THE
STOPS, NOT EVEN WOLFGANG WOEGER. And .5-inch bump stops do NOTHING over
a 1-inch bumper because unless you set soft springs and bars, you will
NEVER be on them.

Read good chassis setup book and you'll see I'm right.

Now, I'd prefer the game would have better bump modeling too, but right
now it doesn't. So 1-inch ride heights work... and they make you faster.
What's the harm in that?

Have fun in your Monster Truck! :-)

-Dave


> gpl low riders must die

> Before going gold GPL allowed bump ***s of .5 in. This was raised because
> low rider
> setups were much faster. ie low center of gravity, less weight transference,
> whatever.
> Low riders run on bump stops. In reallity small road surface variants would
> bounce
> such a car making it undriveable. This was a release time RAS subject. GPL
> does not model
> small road surface variants. Thus, low riders are very fast in GPL and
> riding at 1.0 in.
> the lowest legal ride height.

> This is a problem. 1967 cars didnt run on bump stops. I like to compare my
> times to the
> fast net guys. Im a 106 at watkins, 123 at mosport with the Ferrari. Not
> Bad. I down
> loaded some low riders and in 6 laps broke by best times. I wasnt even
> trying too hard. I
> was pissed off.

> I dont like riding on bump stops. I like the realest sim possible. GPL. Low
> riders take
> advantage of the unmodeled road surface; its only physics flaw?. Its a lot
> like CHEATING.
> Now theres nothing to achieve. Make a low rider, learn to drive it and be
> fast. Boring.
> No more tweeking. I admire speedy net guys skill though.

> Same thing happened with GP2. Low riders with packers longer than suspension
> travel.
> I never could figure that out. But it was fast and killed my fun in the
> game.

> Dave could maybe fix it. Add high speed vibation term, depending on speed,
> that bump
> ***s cant damp. Not realistic but would***the low riders. Now finding
> ride height
> would be a challenge again.

> In the race for fastest lap times low riders are winning big. By exploiting
> the Flaw they
> are putting up amazing times. The setups dont make sense for the era
> modelled. Advice on
> setups in 4WD and Doud Arano's rules of thumb are pointless. Whats to be
> learned of that
> era of racing technology? It doesnt apply because of a flaw.

> Im writing to***off speedy net dudes, raise a fuss and get flamed. And
> maybe Papyrus
> can help.

> Anyone..., Beuller.

> PS

> Sorry for negative post, I love GPL, been waiting since indycar for such
> realism.

> I know its in the game, but Papyrus isnt EA. Their better.

schwab

LOW RIDERS MUST DIE

by schwab » Sat, 30 Jan 1999 04:00:00

I have no problem with a "default" setup race... if it can be enforced
somehow.

But the original "low rider" message still fries me!

_Dave




> >Like Hawaii (not sure about NROS), a way of the host setting an "IROC"
> >switch to force others into line.  ;)

> Yep, there are fixed / IROC setups on NROS. Usually produces some of the
> most intense racing!

> Cheers,
> Richard

> --
> We all bump into each other every day of our lives, and we render our opinions
> whether we know anything or not, and if anybody catches us out we lie...

Roo

LOW RIDERS MUST DIE

by Roo » Sun, 31 Jan 1999 04:00:00



Immense? I wouldn't bet that 5% of people playing racers/sims go
internet multiplayer...

mjessick-Motorsim

LOW RIDERS MUST DIE

by mjessick-Motorsim » Sun, 31 Jan 1999 04:00:00




> >With NASCAR and the immense market for online racing in the US,

> Immense? I wouldn't bet that 5% of people playing racers/sims go
> internet multiplayer...

This means that 95% of our brethren must still Be Saved! :)
Go forth unto all the lands...

--
Matthew V. Jessick         Motorsport Simulations

Vehicle Dynamics Engineer  (972)910-8866, Fax: (972)910-8216

Michael E. Carve

LOW RIDERS MUST DIE

by Michael E. Carve » Sun, 31 Jan 1999 04:00:00

I would hope (I know that Alison has asked Papyrus) that the "patch"
will include a setup validator that will "correct" bump ***s lower
than 1".

Time will tell....

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

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


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.