rec.autos.simulators

by **Roy Harringto** » Mon, 04 Jan 1999 04:00:00

I've been systematically going through each track since I bought GPL.
First I drove the Cooper using Alisson's setups. Went through all the
tracks, then, using Alisson's Honda setups I went through all the tracks
driving the Honda, still driving the Cooper, as well, doing a race in
each. Then, this last time through the tracks, I drove the Lotus. The
thing was, with the Lotus I was doing better times within a couple of
laps than I was in the Cooper and the Honda, even though, as you can
imagine, my control over the Lotus was a lot less than with the other
two cars. Anyone who has driven these three cars knows the difference.
The question is, if I was able to go faster in the Lotus even though I
had relatively little control over it, did the Lotus in 1967 have that
much of an advantage over its rivals? I haven't bothered to look at the
race results from that year, but if it did have that much advantage it
must have been unbeatable.
No wonder so many drivers choose to drive the Lotus on VROC.
roy

by **Jon Van Ginneke** » Mon, 04 Jan 1999 04:00:00

The Lotus would be unbeatable, but it was beaten by the Brabham through the
Brabham's endurance. The Lotus is a very easy car o break the engine on, do
that over 70 laps and frequent DNF's (Hill's season was filled with DNF
after DNF). The Brabham on the other hand just trudged along as second
fastest, but when the top 2 fall out a lot they become the top car. That's
how Brabham won the constructor's and was 1-2 in Drivers.

> I've been systematically going through each track since I bought GPL.
> First I drove the Cooper using Alisson's setups. Went through all the
> tracks, then, using Alisson's Honda setups I went through all the tracks
> driving the Honda, still driving the Cooper, as well, doing a race in
> each. Then, this last time through the tracks, I drove the Lotus. The
> thing was, with the Lotus I was doing better times within a couple of
> laps than I was in the Cooper and the Honda, even though, as you can
> imagine, my control over the Lotus was a lot less than with the other
> two cars. Anyone who has driven these three cars knows the difference.
> The question is, if I was able to go faster in the Lotus even though I
> had relatively little control over it, did the Lotus in 1967 have that
> much of an advantage over its rivals? I haven't bothered to look at the
> race results from that year, but if it did have that much advantage it
> must have been unbeatable.
> No wonder so many drivers choose to drive the Lotus on VROC.
> roy

--

Jon Van Ginneken

"I wrestled with an alligator, tussled with a whale,
handcuffed lightning, threw thunder in jail...I'm a bad dude."

- Muhammad Ali

by **Chippe** » Mon, 04 Jan 1999 04:00:00

Main reason is, it's the only car u can get any setups for off the
net........

chip

>I've been systematically going through each track since I bought GPL.
>First I drove the Cooper using Alisson's setups. Went through all the
>tracks, then, using Alisson's Honda setups I went through all the tracks
>driving the Honda, still driving the Cooper, as well, doing a race in
>each. Then, this last time through the tracks, I drove the Lotus. The
>thing was, with the Lotus I was doing better times within a couple of
>laps than I was in the Cooper and the Honda, even though, as you can
>imagine, my control over the Lotus was a lot less than with the other
>two cars. Anyone who has driven these three cars knows the difference.
>The question is, if I was able to go faster in the Lotus even though I
>had relatively little control over it, did the Lotus in 1967 have that
>much of an advantage over its rivals? I haven't bothered to look at the
>race results from that year, but if it did have that much advantage it
>must have been unbeatable.
>No wonder so many drivers choose to drive the Lotus on VROC.
>roy

by **alan** » Mon, 04 Jan 1999 04:00:00

I would like someone to post some setups that they use for racing, as
opposed to setups for hotlaps. And, even better, setups from someone
NOT using a split-axis controller (I'm guessing it makes a difference)

For a couple of months I bumbled about way off the pace. Then I
started using the Coventry with Alison's setups, and was able to lap
consistently at last.

Then I followed someone's suggestion (on this forum) of copying
Alison's Coventry setups for use with the Lotus. I did so, and
immediately gained 2-4 seconds on all the circuits I race - Spa,
Zandvoort, and Monza mainly, plus Silverstone, Kyalami, and Mexico a
bit. (I would love to drive a less fashionable car than the Lotus -
but at my skill level I just cannot afford the drop in speed with
other cars. When I race online I am always very grateful to those very
fast drivers who drive cars other than the Lotus to bring themselves
back to the field - thanks guys.)

I can now beat the AI at 100% on novice race at Monza! - a major
achievement for me! I've done 2 or 3 laps of 1.29.30, but can lap
consistently at 1.30-1.32.

That's where I've been stuck for a few days now. I've tried other
people's setups, but find them undriveable - I cannot seem to avoid
spinning under brakes. I'm trying to work out just what it is about
Alison's setups that helps me - from what I've read the fact it
"understeers" is what helps beginners such as myself, but I'm not
quite sure how to change that to a more conventional (faster?) setup
gradually.

As always, plenty to work on with GPL. What a superb piece of
programming it is!

Cheers

Alan (aka Spenser)

by **Swindell** » Mon, 04 Jan 1999 04:00:00

I know, because I've read a book :o)

The Lotus team had struggled through 1966, the previous season to GPL. However
in march 1967, Colin Chapman of the Lotus Team and a legend in his own right,
managed to get hold of the all new Cosworth DFV - an engine funded by Ford and
built to an all new V8 design. When they were on the track Lotus were
unbeatable (with Hill & Clark) but unfortunatly it wasn't their season for
reliability and mechanical failure after mechanical failure ensured a joint 6th
championship placement for Hill and a 3rd in the championship for Jim Clark.

For the constructors cup, Lotus still managed a 2nd with 50 points... 17
behined the Brabhams of Denny Hulme and Jack Brabham.

Best 9 scores from the 11 races counted...

Cya,

Rob - still think they were just a bunch of rich guys :o)

by **Bill Met** » Mon, 04 Jan 1999 04:00:00

Try using Alison's Cooper setups on the Lotus. They're not that far off
for some of the tracks. I've found they work well at Monza, Spa, and
Silverstone. I took six seconds off my best Spa time inside of 30
minutes.
The thing that gets me about the Lotus is that many people say it is a
very "nervous" car. Personally, I feel that the Lotus brings out the good
OR the bad its setup. One thing I have noticed since I've started driving
the Lotus is that it it gives very little warning of impending doom.
You'll be comfortably going through a turn, then *BANG* it's gone. Again
though, that may just be the nature of the setups I'm using.

-Bill

--
Bill Mette | "A person is smart. People are dumb."
MCSNet, Chicago | - K MiB

by **Bill Met** » Mon, 04 Jan 1999 04:00:00

Since we're digging up some Lotus history in this thread, I've got a
question. I'm presently reading Pete Lyons' "Can-Am" book. (Great book
BTW.) In it he states:

"As with so many automotive advances, the use of the engine as a stressed
frame member was established in racing by Lotus founder Colin Chapman. He
did not originate the basic principle, but his elegant employment of it on
the Formula One Lotus-Ford 49 was eye opening and convincing."

So, is Pete mistaken, or was the 49 the only '67 GP car with full
monocoque contruction? I thought that by 1967 a fully monocoque chassis
would have been obligatory.

-Bill
--
Bill Mette | "A person is smart. People are dumb."
MCSNet, Chicago | - K MiB

by **Paul Jone** » Tue, 05 Jan 1999 04:00:00

Not true - Alison Hine has setups for loads of cars, there are some hotlap
sites with corresponding setups and Jason Monds has some very good setups for
the Eagle and the Ferrari and another car.
Paul

> Main reason is, it's the only car u can get any setups for off the
> net........

> chip

> >I've been systematically going through each track since I bought GPL.
> >First I drove the Cooper using Alisson's setups. Went through all the
> >tracks, then, using Alisson's Honda setups I went through all the tracks
> >driving the Honda, still driving the Cooper, as well, doing a race in
> >each. Then, this last time through the tracks, I drove the Lotus. The
> >thing was, with the Lotus I was doing better times within a couple of
> >laps than I was in the Cooper and the Honda, even though, as you can
> >imagine, my control over the Lotus was a lot less than with the other
> >two cars. Anyone who has driven these three cars knows the difference.
> >The question is, if I was able to go faster in the Lotus even though I
> >had relatively little control over it, did the Lotus in 1967 have that
> >much of an advantage over its rivals? I haven't bothered to look at the
> >race results from that year, but if it did have that much advantage it
> >must have been unbeatable.
> >No wonder so many drivers choose to drive the Lotus on VROC.
> >roy

by **Paul Jone** » Tue, 05 Jan 1999 04:00:00

> No wonder so many drivers choose to drive the Lotus on VROC.

Yes, the VROC grids are b*** with Lotuses (Lotii?), but I would say that
the other cars get a podium showing in proportion to their number on the
grid. I'm a slowish driver but I have often got in the top three by
carefully driving around wrecked Lotuses,
Paul

by **Peter Ho** » Tue, 05 Jan 1999 04:00:00

If you think there's nobody with their bum in a race car (F1 included)
today because Daddy's got money, you haven't been paying attention.

Peter Holt

by **Peter Ho** » Tue, 05 Jan 1999 04:00:00

The use of the engine as a stressed frame member is not related to
whether monocoque construction is used. You can use the a tubular
frame and still use the engine as a stressed member. For instance,
many motorcycles use the engine as part of the frame but they're not
monocoque. I don't know for sure whether the 49 had a tubular frame
but I know the Brabham BT24 did at least.

by **Arne Martin Hansse** » Tue, 05 Jan 1999 04:00:00

> Since we're digging up some Lotus history in this thread, I've got a
> question. I'm presently reading Pete Lyons' "Can-Am" book. (Great book
> BTW.) In it he states:

> "As with so many automotive advances, the use of the engine as a stressed
> frame member was established in racing by Lotus founder Colin Chapman. He
> did not originate the basic principle, but his elegant employment of it on
> the Formula One Lotus-Ford 49 was eye opening and convincing."

> So, is Pete mistaken, or was the 49 the only '67 GP car with full
> monocoque contruction? I thought that by 1967 a fully monocoque chassis
> would have been obligatory.

> -Bill
> --
> Bill Mette | "A person is smart. People are dumb."
> MCSNet, Chicago | - K MiB

No, all cars except the Brabham used a monocoque design in 67, but only
the Lotus used the engine as a stressed part of the chassis. The two are
not the same.
However the first F1 car to use the engine as a stressed part of the
chassis was not the Lotus, but the Lancia D50 of 54-55 (the Lancia had a
tubular frame BTW). It was also the first car to put the fuel near the
center of gravity so that charcetristics wouldn't change as much with
fuel load (the other cars had the fuel in the tail). Unfortunatly when
Ferrari bought Lancia in 56, they undid all of these novel features to
make it a more conventional car.

--
Arne Martin Hanssen
Oslo, Norway

by **Matthew Knutse** » Tue, 05 Jan 1999 04:00:00

> Try using Alison's Cooper setups on the Lotus. They're not that far
> off
> for some of the tracks. I've found they work well at Monza, Spa, and
> Silverstone. I took six seconds off my best Spa time inside of 30
> minutes.
> The thing that gets me about the Lotus is that many people say it is
> a
> very "nervous" car. Personally, I feel that the Lotus brings out the
> good
> OR the bad its setup. One thing I have noticed since I've started
> driving
> the Lotus is that it it gives very little warning of impending doom.
> You'll be comfortably going through a turn, then *BANG* it's gone.
> Again
> though, that may just be the nature of the setups I'm using.

> -Bill

Well, I don't totally agree :)The Lotus *is* tough to drive; it has
loads of understeer that needs to be brought around by heavy lumps of
throttle, and the engine is'nt what I'd call progressive. Certainly, my
fastest laps after Hours Of Practice, have been in the Lotus - but -
thanks to the late PRC IROC races, I was forced to try other cars - with
default setups. Whenever I race the Lotus, I always keep some in
reserve, but the Brabham and Coopers can be thrown at every turn 110%
every lap for ages without biting you back! An example would be
Zandvoort, where my best Lotus lap is a 1.25.5, but getting low 26s
constantly in a race is hard (or so I think). Whenever I feel like it, I
can bring out the Brabham, and do low 26s/high 25s all day long!
As for chassis, the Repco is a driver's dream! If that old pushrod
bucket only could give us another 50 HP....: )

Matt Knutsen

- Show quoted text -

by **Bill Met** » Tue, 05 Jan 1999 04:00:00

Big Homer Simpson "DOH!" on my part. I've known that fact for years,
but for some reason it didn't spew forth from my brain when I was writing
my message. Amazing what a lack of sleep can do.

-Bill
--
Bill Mette | "A person is smart. People are dumb."
MCSNet, Chicago | - K MiB

by **Michael E. Carve** » Tue, 05 Jan 1999 04:00:00

% > No wonder so many drivers choose to drive the Lotus on VROC.
% >

% Yes, the VROC grids are b*** with Lotuses (Lotii?), but I would say that
% the other cars get a podium showing in proportion to their number on the
% grid. I'm a slowish driver but I have often got in the top three by
% carefully driving around wrecked Lotuses,

Same here. I think that due to the lack of sheer speed in the other
marques, it has taken some of us (notice "some") a little bit longer to
get some consistent speed out of them. Last night in a race at Monza, I
qualified 2nd on my Eagle, with you guessed it, a Lotus in 1st. The
Lotus got off ahead of me, and I was in close pursuit, when another
Eagle (in 3rd) thought they needed to make a charge on the 1st lap as we
head into the Lesmos. So as not to crash, I had to let up, allowing
them the inside line (only for them to go in too deep and slide along
the outside Armco), allowing the Lotus to pull off in the distance.

By the first report from the pits, I was 2 seconds behind the Lotus.
After about 4 laps, the reports where still 2 seconds gap, but I knew I
was gaining, as I was ever closer each time we entered the Lesmos. The
poor Lotus driver feeling that an Eagle was swooping in for the kill
(actually I doubt that I had enough laps in the "short" race to chase
him down and make the pass), pressed too hard going into the Parabolica.
You guessed it, off into the sand. Off into the lead with still 1/2 of
the race left.

I pushed the Eagle for a couple of quick race laps (high 1:29's and low
1:30's) until my pit board showed a safe 5+ second gap between me and
the pursuing Lotus. Time to ease off and preserve my lead. This allowed
the Lotus to come within 2 seconds, so it was time again to start putting
in the 1:29's and low 1:30's. However, the smell of my Eagle exhaust
must have raised the adrenalin of the Lotus driver, as he once again went
wide in the Parabolica. Once again, victory to steady and sure, and not
necessarily the fast and sloppy.

With all that said, I am rather disheartened by the many times I have
passed a hot-flying Lotus during one of their off course maneuvers, only
to have the flying beast chase me down and pass me again (sometimes as
may as 3-4 times a race). The car is damn fast (and so are some of the
Lotus drivers -- which is why they chose the Lotus)! But in a real
racing world (no Shift-R's and real damage), these drivers would never
finish a race, let alone win one.

Yeh, I know, run Pro races instead. While they are fine with a "known"
group of racers, they are *** in pickup races. The majority of the
time I have been taken out, in the 1st couple of laps, by "drunken"
pilots, who never had a chance to begin with. That's after spending
20-30 minutes in practice achieving a decent grid position. That's alot
of time to invest only to be taken out by some wild kamikaze samurai
from Saturday Night Live! <G> [letting my age show]

Hope to see ya on the track...

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

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

rec.autos.simulators

LOTUS - GPL

LOTUS - GPL

LOTUS - GPL

LOTUS - GPL

LOTUS - GPL

LOTUS - GPL

LOTUS - GPL

LOTUS - GPL

LOTUS - GPL

LOTUS - GPL

LOTUS - GPL

LOTUS - GPL

LOTUS - GPL

LOTUS - GPL

LOTUS - GPL

LOTUS - GPL