Sent via Deja.com http://www.racesimcentral.net/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
1. If the basic physics of a car dictate that the lowest possible SRH = the
lowest center of gravity = minimum weight transfer = best combined grip from all
tires, then why did the '67 GP cars have suspension geometry designed for, and
ride heights set for, a higher range than optimal in GPL?
I believe it has to do most with the tires of the time. An open formula like GP
racing basically dictates that much of the car design is determined by the
available tire characteristics. The primary tire characteristics of that time
were low grip for the available engine power, and tall profile with stiff
sidewalls resulting in the tire acting like a very stiff spring compared to
today's tire designs. This required soft springs and shocks, compared to modern
race cars, to better give the driver the ability to control the car at the
limit. And the softer settings required higher ride height to keep the bottom of
the chassis from hitting the ground or the suspension hitting the bump stops,
either of which would have caused a more *** loss of grip than in a modern
car with stiffer settings, better tire grip, and softer lower sidewall designs.
Also, I suspect it was important be conservative with setups (keep'em high)
given the already high death and injury rate to drivers of the time...not a
problem in a sim.
2. Why do the GPL cars seem to drive well whether set to high or low ride
heights, and get away with the 'low rider' settings that produce the best laps
times expected of achieving the lowest possible center of gravity?
It appears to me this is not so much a case of whether Papy modeled the
variables of vehicle dynamics accurately, but what had to be left out of the
model. From what I've read, GPL doesn't model all aspects of suspension
geometry. Factors like instant center height, camber change, contact patch
scrub, etc are not effected by ride height. So there is no resulting down side
to 'low rider' settings.
Also, GPL car settings don't have to take into account all the track surface
irregularities of the real world because they too are not modeled. A smoother
more consistant surface = higher spring, shock, and bar settings = lower ride
heights = lower center of gravity = less weight transfer = better combined grip
of all 4 tires.
So, all in all, good job Papy and 2.5" ride height in the patch makes sense to
me.
Marty
> >Yeah guys, lets go race Nascar Revolution. Who cares how realistic it is.
> >Its just a game! Sorry I had to say that. No offense to you. Just wanted
> >to make a point.
> I didn't quite mean it that way though Jesse. But thanks for calling me on
> that. I guess I'd better explain a little better. What I meant was really
> that no game will ever be a perfect simulation of real life. We can't program
> all the kinds of variables that occur in real life and I doubt that we'll ever
Not really. If hardware wouldn't get faster, we'd still be driving or
flying
funny little polygons. Luckily, improvement will prevail. ;^)
l8er
ronny
--
Ronald Stoehr Alcatel Telecom
voice +49 711 821 46949 Lorenzstrasse 10
fax +49 711 821 42303 D-70435 Stuttgart
> > .... I would be particularly interested in what the 1967 F1
> regulations said about implementation of suspension, and interested to
> know what it would have been possible to do to a car in the way of
> suspension tuning given an unlimited amount of time and budget. ....
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>1. If the basic physics of a car dictate that the lowest possible SRH = the
>lowest center of gravity = minimum weight transfer = best combined grip
from all
>tires, then why did the '67 GP cars have suspension geometry designed for,
and
>ride heights set for, a higher range than optimal in GPL?
>I believe it has to do most with the tires of the time. An open formula
like GP
>racing basically dictates that much of the car design is determined by the
>available tire characteristics. The primary tire characteristics of that
time
>were low grip for the available engine power, and tall profile with stiff
>sidewalls resulting in the tire acting like a very stiff spring compared to
>today's tire designs. This required soft springs and shocks, compared to
modern
>race cars, to better give the driver the ability to control the car at the
>limit. And the softer settings required higher ride height to keep the
bottom of
>the chassis from hitting the ground or the suspension hitting the bump
stops,
>either of which would have caused a more *** loss of grip than in a
modern
>car with stiffer settings, better tire grip, and softer lower sidewall
designs.
>Also, I suspect it was important be conservative with setups (keep'em high)
>given the already high death and injury rate to drivers of the time...not a
>problem in a sim.
Like the Bugatti circuit and the F10 Arcade view. Or being able to change
anything on the car without caring about the time to change the parts.
Pitstops ? :)
Just want to stir up the soup, sorry Bruce ;-P
I guess one way or the other, some people will be unhappy. Kinda reminds me
of canonical stuff in the Star Wars universe.
--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard/Nas-Frank>
-- NROS Nascar sanctioned Guide http://www.nros.com/
-- SimRacing Online http://www.simracing.com/
-- Official mentally retarded guy of r.a.s.
-- May the Downforce be with you...
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise
how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
> Like the Bugatti circuit and the F10 Arcade view. Or being able to change
> anything on the car without caring about the time to change the parts.
> Pitstops ? :)
> Just want to stir up the soup, sorry Bruce ;-P
> I guess one way or the other, some people will be unhappy. Kinda reminds
me
> of canonical stuff in the Star Wars universe.
> --
> -- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard/Nas-Frank>
> -- NROS Nascar sanctioned Guide http://www.nros.com/
> -- SimRacing Online http://www.simracing.com/
> -- Official mentally retarded guy of r.a.s.
> -- May the Downforce be with you...
> "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise
> how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
/Christer
> >Yeah guys, lets go race Nascar Revolution. Who cares how realistic it is.
> >Its just a game! Sorry I had to say that. No offense to you. Just wanted
> >to make a point.
> I didn't quite mean it that way though Jesse. But thanks for calling me on
> that. I guess I'd better explain a little better. What I meant was really
> that no game will ever be a perfect simulation of real life. We can't program
> all the kinds of variables that occur in real life and I doubt that we'll ever
> be able to do so realistically. So, is there anything really wrong with GPL
> now? It's the best simulator on the market, even if the ride height isn't
> completely correct to real life. So, don't fret and just enjoy how much better
> it is than NASCAR Revulsion even though it's not completely perfect. That
> better?
> Dan Belcher
> Team Racing Unlimited
Oh jeez, I've caused enough crap, haven't I? :(
Dan Belcher
Team Racing Unlimited
:
snip snip
snip snip
/Christer
> Yeah, that's the problem. People aren't interested in realistic setups, they are
> interested in going as fast as possible, and this is where things didn't turn
> out to be as Papy meant.
> ---Asgeir---
> > so they gave us the freedom to have realistic physics through setup
> > modification but people dont want an authentic setup. They want a fast
> > setup so they do the exact opposite and abuse the lack of a COMPLETELY
> > realistic physics model.
> > My thoughts
Tore Hanson
