rec.autos.simulators

by **Tore Hanso** » Tue, 06 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Did the regulations prohibit the use of airfoils and ground effects, or was
it not thought of then? Some of us are looking at GPL from the "perfect
hind-sight " view. We are forcing current knowledge into the racing era of
1967. What some of us really want is a contemporary F1 sim that performs
like GPL, and hopefully we will get it, but then we we also get the
chopped-up tracks that go with it. If we limit our thinking to the
experience available in1967 perhaps we will look at this SIM differently.

Tore

> But Piers, there only seven makes of cars to choose from in GPL, and in
> there day some teams like Ferrari had a lot of money to spend on
suspension
> development. But coincidentally all of the teams ran ride heights in the
> region of 3.75 inch to 5 inch. Not lower. Ride height was free in the
> regulations, so they must have had some idea what they were doing...
> Steve

> :
> snip snip

> >Is it though? care to provide references : 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.
> ...

> snip snip

by **Jan Verschuere** » Wed, 07 Jul 1999 04:00:00

ok, but who's gonna build those setups? -You'd have to drive like the one
that build the setup to get the most out of it. I don't think I'd enjoy
that. Using the demo, I made up a short list off stuff I wanted to change on
the car, once I got the ability to change the setup, so... even then I was
convinced I could do better. ;-))

I'm willing to give it a go tho'...

Jan.
------

>You are onto something here Jesse. I like the idea of driver skill vs setup
>skill. A standard "typical" setup of the day would add to the driving
>element. <snip>

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Wed, 07 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Not thought of then, Tore.
In fact, in 1968, the Repco-Brabham and Ferrari teams simultaneously fielded
cars with "little" wings mounted over the engine....the first in Formula
One. (Jim Hall having outfitted the Chaparral the previous Can-Am season).

In the following race, the French GP at Rouen, Lotus took the design to the
next phase with the "wings on sticks" model. It was this version (which
broke quite regularly) that led to the FAI writing the rules....for the very
first time....on wings on F1 cars.

> Did the regulations prohibit the use of airfoils and ground effects, or
was
> it not thought of then? Some of us are looking at GPL from the "perfect
> hind-sight " view. We are forcing current knowledge into the racing era of
> 1967. What some of us really want is a contemporary F1 sim that performs
> like GPL, and hopefully we will get it, but then we we also get the
> chopped-up tracks that go with it. If we limit our thinking to the
> experience available in1967 perhaps we will look at this SIM differently.

> Tore

> > But Piers, there only seven makes of cars to choose from in GPL, and in
> > there day some teams like Ferrari had a lot of money to spend on
> suspension
> > development. But coincidentally all of the teams ran ride heights in the
> > region of 3.75 inch to 5 inch. Not lower. Ride height was free in the
> > regulations, so they must have had some idea what they were doing...
> > Steve

- Show quoted text -

by **Tore Hanso** » Wed, 07 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Thanks you sir.

Tore

> Not thought of then, Tore.
> In fact, in 1968, the Repco-Brabham and Ferrari teams simultaneously
fielded
> cars with "little" wings mounted over the engine....the first in Formula
> One. (Jim Hall having outfitted the Chaparral the previous Can-Am season).

> In the following race, the French GP at Rouen, Lotus took the design to
the
> next phase with the "wings on sticks" model. It was this version (which
> broke quite regularly) that led to the FAI writing the rules....for the
very
> first time....on wings on F1 cars.

> > Did the regulations prohibit the use of airfoils and ground effects, or
> was
> > it not thought of then? Some of us are looking at GPL from the "perfect
> > hind-sight " view. We are forcing current knowledge into the racing era
of
> > 1967. What some of us really want is a contemporary F1 sim that performs
> > like GPL, and hopefully we will get it, but then we we also get the
> > chopped-up tracks that go with it. If we limit our thinking to the
> > experience available in1967 perhaps we will look at this SIM
differently.

> > Tore

> > > But Piers, there only seven makes of cars to choose from in GPL, and
in
> > > there day some teams like Ferrari had a lot of money to spend on
> > suspension
> > > development. But coincidentally all of the teams ran ride heights in
the
> > > region of 3.75 inch to 5 inch. Not lower. Ride height was free in the
> > > regulations, so they must have had some idea what they were doing...
> > > Steve

> > > :
> > > snip snip

> > > >Is it though? care to provide references : 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.
> > > ...

> > > snip snip

by **David A. Ewin** » Wed, 07 Jul 1999 04:00:00

>Not thought of then, Tore.
>In fact, in 1968, the Repco-Brabham and Ferrari teams simultaneously
fielded
>cars with "little" wings mounted over the engine....the first in Formula
>One. (Jim Hall having outfitted the Chaparral the previous Can-Am season).

(Hi Bruce). Actually, Jim Hall's first winged Chaparral was used in the
1966 Can-Am season (the revolutionary 2E). It publically debuted at
Bridgehampton on Long Island in September.

There had been some experiments with airfoils prior to the Chaparral
project. There was even an Opel rocket car back in the 1920s with stubby
wings on the sides! The first wing mounted above the car is believed to be
Michael May's Porsche 550 which ran at Nurburgring in 1956. Unfortunately,
it was banned before the race began.

Unfortunately, the F1 teams that started to use wings in 1968 did a very
poor job implementing them. There were some *** crashes when the wings
failed at high speed. At the Spanish Grand Prix in 1969 Graham Hill and
Jochen Rindt had very scary crashes when the wings on their Lotuses broke.
After that race, the FIA banned the high strutted, movable wings.

Dave Ewing

by **Tim Wheatle** » Wed, 07 Jul 1999 04:00:00

GPL isn't real life though Ian, I 'know' you and respect your speed, but
don't agree - sorry!

I think 2.5 is great.

by **Stephen Barnet** » Wed, 07 Jul 1999 04:00:00

So why can't 3.5 be great? What is wrong with making the sim correct? I
think most, if not all, of the people who are for higher than 2.5 inch ride
heights would admit that GPL is not 'real life'. But GPL did fanfare its
'authenticity' in its own literature. And a little historical rigor never
did anybody any harm did it?

Steve (3.5 min and 1 inch bump stops rule O.K.)

>GPL isn't real life though Ian, I 'know' you and respect your speed, but
>don't agree - sorry!

>I think 2.5 is great.

by **Glenn Whit** » Wed, 07 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Hi David,

To elaborate on your comments, Colin Chapman originally mounted the
wings directly onto the suspension memebers. Typical of Chapman the
wing strut's diameters were as small as he dared use and they broke
often. If you have ever seen the suspension mounted wings they look
very ugly. They were mounted about 1.5 meters high and in the videos
I've seen they move all over the place. It's hard to imagine a race car
(or sports car) with out any wings nowadays. You even see little
econo-boxes with them. That may be my favorite aspect of GPL. No wings
and no sponsor's labels all over the cars and driving suits.

G White

> Unfortunately, the F1 teams that started to use wings in 1968 did a very
> poor job implementing them. There were some *** crashes when the wings
> failed at high speed. At the Spanish Grand Prix in 1969 Graham Hill and
> Jochen Rindt had very scary crashes when the wings on their Lotuses broke.
> After that race, the FIA banned the high strutted, movable wings.

> Dave Ewing

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Thu, 08 Jul 1999 04:00:00

Thanks, David.
I was simply using the old memory banks (emphasis on "old"!) and couldn't
recall whether it was '67 or '66 that Jim did the "wing thing" with the 2E.
(I have a perfectly good Chaparral ref book here so why I didn't look at
that, I don't know. Too ***y lazy to get up and get it!!)

> >Not thought of then, Tore.
> >In fact, in 1968, the Repco-Brabham and Ferrari teams simultaneously
> fielded
> >cars with "little" wings mounted over the engine....the first in Formula
> >One. (Jim Hall having outfitted the Chaparral the previous Can-Am
season).

> (Hi Bruce). Actually, Jim Hall's first winged Chaparral was used in the
> 1966 Can-Am season (the revolutionary 2E). It publically debuted at
> Bridgehampton on Long Island in September.

> There had been some experiments with airfoils prior to the Chaparral
> project. There was even an Opel rocket car back in the 1920s with stubby
> wings on the sides! The first wing mounted above the car is believed to
be
> Michael May's Porsche 550 which ran at Nurburgring in 1956.
Unfortunately,
> it was banned before the race began.

> Unfortunately, the F1 teams that started to use wings in 1968 did a very
> poor job implementing them. There were some *** crashes when the wings
> failed at high speed. At the Spanish Grand Prix in 1969 Graham Hill and
> Jochen Rindt had very scary crashes when the wings on their Lotuses broke.
> After that race, the FIA banned the high strutted, movable wings.

> Dave Ewing

by **Bruce Kennewel** » Thu, 08 Jul 1999 04:00:00

That's different.....respecting somebody's speed!
Do respect his coke and hash as well?

by **Bill Bollinge** » Thu, 08 Jul 1999 04:00:00

> So why can't 3.5 be great? What is wrong with making the sim correct? I
> think most, if not all, of the people who are for higher than 2.5 inch ride
> heights would admit that GPL is not 'real life'. But GPL did fanfare its
> 'authenticity' in its own literature. And a little historical rigor never
> did anybody any harm did it?

> Steve (3.5 min and 1 inch bump stops rule O.K.)

I am probably a little "Thick" on this issue, BUT what is the point of
MANDATING a minimum ride height at all? I know for "Realistic"
standpoint, but wouldn't the EASIEST thing be to just have a "Sliding"
scale of some type that mandated ride height in setting up the game? So
if I wanted to join John Smith's game, it would mandate no less than
say... 2.50 inches but John Miller's game would only go to 3.50 inches?
I also think FIXED setups should be a standard option as well. Just
hard for me to understand the point of mandating a mandatory minimum
when in fact the game isn't 100% realistic anyhow. With or without "low
rider" setups.

Just have to wonder if the same guys screaming for mandatory minimums
are the same guys that wanted to wear fire suits at our NROS champ race
in Daytona LOL. Maybe just carrying this "Gamulation" a little too far
:)

Bill / Amish on TEN

rec.autos.simulators

PAPY listen up! Raise the minimum ride height to 4inches in the gpl patch

PAPY listen up! Raise the minimum ride height to 4inches in the gpl patch

PAPY listen up! Raise the minimum ride height to 4inches in the gpl patch

PAPY listen up! Raise the minimum ride height to 4inches in the gpl patch

PAPY listen up! Raise the minimum ride height to 4inches in the gpl patch

PAPY listen up! Raise the minimum ride height to 4inches in the gpl patch

PAPY listen up! Raise the minimum ride height to 4inches in the gpl patch

PAPY listen up! Raise the minimum ride height to 4inches in the gpl patch

PAPY listen up! Raise the minimum ride height to 4inches in the gpl patch

PAPY listen up! Raise the minimum ride height to 4inches in the gpl patch

PAPY listen up! Raise the minimum ride height to 4inches in the gpl patch

PAPY listen up! Raise the minimum ride height to 4inches in the gpl patch