rec.autos.simulators

Matt

JB> >Does anyone know the differences in characteristics of the engines,
JB> >chassis, and tires in ICR2?

JB> USE FIRESTONES!!!  Longer life AND better grip.  Penske chassis has
JB> terrible downforce/drag ratio...  Switching from a Reynard to a Lola
JB> immediately got me another 1mph at Loudon...  Haven't done much
JB> engine testing though...

This interests me.....setup discussions never seem to mention chassiss,
engines or tyres. I've used a Reynard with a Cosworth engine because
without anything to go on I used patriotism as a random way of making
choices.

Any hackers out there dissected out the merits of these choices? Anyone
done any testing to properly (rather than anecdotal opinion) demonstrate
differences. Anyone at Papyrus (Rick Genter stand up?) like to shed any
light here?

Cheers!

---
 * RM 1.3 U0414 *     ===== CLOSED FOR TAGLINE DEVELOPMENT =====

Guess I'll throw in my two cents:

The Chassis, Engines, Tires performance values of the real Indycar World
Series are the basis for ICR II.  

This means:

Lola:  Just slightly the best overall chassis.  Best on ovals and
superspeedways, slight stability problems on some road courses that
affects tire wear and handling over the course of a fuel load.

Reynard:  Better than the Lola on road courses, confident, stable on
ovals but a little heavier and  produces more drag making the lola
overall, a better sled.

Penske:  I can't figure if Papy setup the Penske to be like the season
end Penske which finished EVER so close to Pruett at Michigan or the
Chassis that got beat by the Speedway tour bus at Indy.  Anyway.  
Penske:  Solid road course performer where it was easiest of all 3 to
handle wear tires over the whole season.  Sucked on ovals until very
late in the season (when the `96 undercarriage and suspension pieces
were added) because the car lost so much speed in turns and
experienced sometimes *** buffering/handling when in a pack of
cars and slipstreaming occurred.

Engines:

Ford:  Best overall.  Improved low-end torque over the `94 engine
package. Solid high-end power for ovals/superspeedways.  Prone to
more breakdowns than the other engines.(fact in ICR II and real
life*****)

Mercedes:  Weak at high ends compared to Honda and Ford.  Good low range
power and better power band than Ford.  VERY reliable.

Honda:  Okay at low ranges(coming out of turns on a road course)  Great,
Great top power for the ovals.  This engine is the choice of anyone
trying to set one lap records at Michgian etc...

Tires:

Goodyear:  Good grip.average durability.  Best on road courses.  not as
sticky as the Firestones.

Firestones:  Better on ovals than the Goodyears because of their better
grip and longer durability (Ask S. Pruett at Indy when he SKIPPED a tire
change during the race to get back a lap.  Damn impressive)  Firstones
were good on the road courses but they didn't get a win.  No real reason
why.

SO:  These are the facts relating to the `95 season.  I have it on good
authority (tech guy at Papy explained this when I call their office
recently) that these are the patterns the game will emulate.  

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

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

Penskes supposedly had some problems that never got resolved,
possibly related to a mismatching between the tires (otherwise fine
Goodyear Eagles) and the chassis. Big problems in qualifying runs.

Reynard and Lolas both showed dramatic improvements from '94. Reynards
were considered very adaptable to whichever tires put on them. Lolas
seemed to prefer cool weather to hot.

Mercedes engines seemed to lack overall horsepower as compared to
Ford/Cosworths and Hondas, which hurt them on superspeedways, but on
raod courses they were all pretty closely matched. Honda was extremely
reliable. F/C had the most wins and poles.

Hope that helps.