I can't lock up the breaks in F1 2002

Might it be I'm not using the full travel? MOMO wheel. Any clues? (Aids: Launch control + Antispin @ Low) /Carl

"Carl Ribbegaardh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:adss22$1sgo3$[email hidden]... > Might it be I'm not using the full travel? > MOMO wheel. > Any clues? > > (Aids: Launch control + Antispin @ Low) Have you got Brake assist turned off? Doug

Yes. This is going full speed I'm talking about. When the car goes down to 100 kmp the wheels start to lock. This is a huge problem in Imola, where the braking point's gets so much earlier than I think they should be. /Carl "Douglas Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:adsv5i$229sa$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > "Carl Ribbegaardh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:adss22$1sgo3$[email hidden]... > > Might it be I'm not using the full travel? > > MOMO wheel. > > Any clues? > > > > (Aids: Launch control + Antispin @ Low) > > Have you got Brake assist turned off? > > Doug > >

"Carl Ribbegaardh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:adt0j8$1ifm0$[email hidden]... > Yes. > > This is going full speed I'm talking about. When the car goes down to 100 > kmp the wheels start to lock. This is a huge problem in Imola, where the > braking point's gets so much earlier than I think they should be. I dont know of many F1 braking zones larger than 100 metres - and with the huge downforce and thus huge grip - it would be difficult to lock the wheels at 180mph anyway. Doug

It might be me playing N2002 too much and being used to be able to lock all 4 at any speed? It will probably stay that way... /Carl "Douglas Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:adt1a0$21kt1$[email hidden]... > > "Carl Ribbegaardh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:adt0j8$1ifm0$[email hidden]... > > Yes. > > > > This is going full speed I'm talking about. When the car goes down to100 > > kmp the wheels start to lock. This is a huge problem in Imola, where the > > braking point's gets so much earlier than I think they should be. > > I dont know of many F1 braking zones larger than 100 metres - and with the > huge downforce and thus huge grip - it would be difficult to lock thewheels > at 180mph anyway. > > Doug > >

First, you need to get the brakes working at right temperature.. not too low, not too high.. in both those cases, the brakes will just not work. Another part is to look at your axis-setup. Turn up the sensitivity off the brake-axis. "Carl Ribbegaardh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:adss22$1sgo3$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Might it be I'm not using the full travel? > MOMO wheel. > Any clues? > > (Aids: Launch control + Antispin @ Low) > > /Carl > >

Carl Ribbegaardh wrote: > > It might be me playing N2002 too much and being used to be able to lock all > 4 at any speed? Why on earth would you want to do that in n2002? Locking up is the quickest way I know of screwing my tyres. Watch any F1 race and you'll see that they normally only lock the front wheel with the heaviest loading. And even then it only seems to happen at end of the braking zone. Gerry

Carl Ribbegaardh wrote: > > It might be me playing N2002 too much and being used to be able to lock all > 4 at any speed? Why on earth would you want to do that in n2002? Locking up is the quickest way I know of screwing my tyres. Watch any F1 race and you'll see that they normally only lock the front wheel with the heaviest loading. And even then it only seems to happen at end of the braking zone. Gerry

Yes of course I don't want to lock up the tires at any cost, the point was that it's very easy to do in some games. When I simply coudn't lock up the brakes in F1-2002 I get the feeling that I could apply just a little bit more brake until the tires squeal ever so slightly. When I couldn't brake so hard the tires locked, I assumed my setup was wrong, and the game just registered that I was pressing the pedal halfways? If you run GPL or Nascar 2002, you have to be easy with the brake to prevent a lockup. In GPL I even have to give halfway throttle to not spin while braking before the hairpin at Rouen. It may be difficult for me to describe the feeling in english, but when you slam the brakes in F1-2002 it feels kinda like in a heavy old car with brakes are all worn out. /Carl "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > Carl Ribbegaardh wrote: > > > > It might be me playing N2002 too much and being used to be able to lockall

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > 4 at any speed? > > Why on earth would you want to do that in n2002? Locking up is the > quickest way I know of screwing my tyres. > > Watch any F1 race and you'll see that they normally only lock the front > wheel with the heaviest loading. And even then it only seems to happen > at end of the braking zone. > > Gerry

I don't have F1 2002 yet (not out for another week here in the States according to Electronics Boutique) but doesn't it have built in telemetry? You could check your deceleration rate and see if it is realistic. I'm not certain what the right number is but I think you should be able to get more than 3 G's deceleration. If you are getting those kind of numbers then your controller is probably fine. "Carl Ribbegaardh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:adtn6t$252uc$[email hidden]... > Yes of course I don't want to lock up the tires at any cost, the pointwas > that it's very easy to do in some games. > When I simply coudn't lock up the brakes in F1-2002 I get the feelingthat I > could apply just a little bit more brake until the tires squeal everso > slightly. When I couldn't brake so hard the tires locked, I assumed mysetup > was wrong, and the game just registered that I was pressing the pedal > halfways? > If you run GPL or Nascar 2002, you have to be easy with the brake toprevent > a lockup. In GPL I even have to give halfway throttle to not spinwhile > braking before the hairpin at Rouen. > > It may be difficult for me to describe the feeling in english, butwhen you

Quoted text (13 lines)

> slam the brakes in F1-2002 it feels kinda like in a heavy old car with > brakes are all worn out. > > /Carl > > > "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > Carl Ribbegaardh wrote: > > > > > > It might be me playing N2002 too much and being used to be able to

lock

Quoted text (7 lines)

> all > > > 4 at any speed? > > > > Why on earth would you want to do that in n2002? Locking up is the > > quickest way I know of screwing my tyres. > > > > Watch any F1 race and you'll see that they normally only lock the

front > > wheel with the heaviest loading. And even then it only seems tohappen > > at end of the braking zone. > > > > Gerry > >

Around 4.5G under braking is possible according to real telemetry i saw. Depends on tirechoose, tarmac, wheater :) "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:adufqa$2dvid$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (59 lines)

> I don't have F1 2002 yet (not out for another week here in the States > according to Electronics Boutique) but doesn't it have built in > telemetry? You could check your deceleration rate and see if it is > realistic. I'm not certain what the right number is but I think you > should be able to get more than 3 G's deceleration. If you are getting > those kind of numbers then your controller is probably fine. > > > "Carl Ribbegaardh" <[email hidden]> wrote in > message news:adtn6t$252uc$[email hidden]... > > Yes of course I don't want to lock up the tires at any cost, the point > was > > that it's very easy to do in some games. > > When I simply coudn't lock up the brakes in F1-2002 I get the feeling > that I > > could apply just a little bit more brake until the tires squeal ever > so > > slightly. When I couldn't brake so hard the tires locked, I assumed my > setup > > was wrong, and the game just registered that I was pressing the pedal > > halfways? > > If you run GPL or Nascar 2002, you have to be easy with the brake to > prevent > > a lockup. In GPL I even have to give halfway throttle to not spin > while > > braking before the hairpin at Rouen. > > > > It may be difficult for me to describe the feeling in english, but > when you > > slam the brakes in F1-2002 it feels kinda like in a heavy old car with > > brakes are all worn out. > > > > /Carl > > > > > > "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > Carl Ribbegaardh wrote: > > > > > > > > It might be me playing N2002 too much and being used to be able to > lock > > all > > > > 4 at any speed? > > > > > > Why on earth would you want to do that in n2002? Locking up is the > > > quickest way I know of screwing my tyres. > > > > > > Watch any F1 race and you'll see that they normally only lock the > front > > > wheel with the heaviest loading. And even then it only seems to > happen > > > at end of the braking zone. > > > > > > Gerry > > > > >

Chech your speed under braking. If it slows down fast, your ok :) "Carl Ribbegaardh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:adtn6t$252uc$[email hidden]... > Yes of course I don't want to lock up the tires at any cost, the point was > that it's very easy to do in some games. > When I simply coudn't lock up the brakes in F1-2002 I get the feeling thatI > could apply just a little bit more brake until the tires squeal ever so > slightly. When I couldn't brake so hard the tires locked, I assumed mysetup > was wrong, and the game just registered that I was pressing the pedal > halfways? > If you run GPL or Nascar 2002, you have to be easy with the brake toprevent > a lockup. In GPL I even have to give halfway throttle to not spin while > braking before the hairpin at Rouen. > > It may be difficult for me to describe the feeling in english, but whenyou

Quoted text (13 lines)

> slam the brakes in F1-2002 it feels kinda like in a heavy old car with > brakes are all worn out. > > /Carl > > > "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > Carl Ribbegaardh wrote: > > > > > > It might be me playing N2002 too much and being used to be able to

lock

Quoted text (13 lines)

> all > > > 4 at any speed? > > > > Why on earth would you want to do that in n2002? Locking up is the > > quickest way I know of screwing my tyres. > > > > Watch any F1 race and you'll see that they normally only lock the front > > wheel with the heaviest loading. And even then it only seems to happen > > at end of the braking zone. > > > > Gerry > >

of course the OTHER WAY is to check for the lock up zone and back off from there .... That would be a really practical way since that is how your car will race... "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:adufqa$2dvid$[email hidden]... > I don't have F1 2002 yet (not out for another weekhere in the States > according to Electronics Boutique) but doesn't ithave built in > telemetry? You could check your deceleration rateand see if it is > realistic. I'm not certain what the right number isbut I think you > should be able to get more than 3 G's deceleration.If you are getting > those kind of numbers then your controller isprobably fine.

Except that he said that he *couldn't* lock them over 100 kph, and was therefore wondering if it meant that his controller was set up incorrectly. I think that what he experienced is normal (due to high downforce), and the way to prove it is to check the decel rate. "John Metcow" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > of course the OTHER WAY > is to check for the lock up zone and > back off from there .... > > That would be a really practical way since > that is how your car will race... > >

"Douglas Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<adt1a0$21kt1$[email hidden]>... braking point's gets so much earlier than I think they should be. > > I dont know of many F1 braking zones larger than 100 metres - and with the > huge downforce and thus huge grip - it would be difficult to lock the wheels > at 180mph anyway. Difficult yes. Impossible? I have a hard time believing that an F1 car cannot lock all 4 brakes, even at 200mph, if the brake pedal is literally pressed as far down as it will go. Braking in F1 2001 is ridiculously easy, since you can just put the pedal down as far as it will go and not have to worry. It would be nice if you had to use the same finesse with the brake pedal as you do with the throttle. In my F12k1 experience, going fast was a matter of downloading one of Gregor Huttu's setups and simply lapping the track a few times to figure out the exact points where I needed to mash the brakes all the way down and then where I could be at full throttle without looping it. With the already limited challenge of point-and-squirt tracks, it would be nice to have a brake pedal that operated like a brake pedal. You might as well assign the brakes to a button. Jason

jason moyer <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I have a hard time believing that an F1 car cannot lock all 4 brakes, > even at 200mph, if the brake pedal is literally pressed as far down as > it will go. [snip] Nope, all the sources I've heard say that this *is* the case. Bear in mind that the download on the tyres is doubled at around 70-80 mph due to downforce, so at 160 mph the total download is around five times the car's weight. Brake system mechanical advantage is a tradeoff between stopping power/low pedal effort (which calls for a high mech adv), and brake 'feel' (which calls for a low mech adv, giving a firmer pedal). Since simulator pedals measure distance, not force, "as far as it will go" is not really meaningful - it depends what the corresponding maximum programmed pedal force is. Jonny

"Jonny Hodgson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Uy6N8.16014$[email hidden]... > Bear in mind that the download on the tyres is doubled at > around 70-80 mph due to downforce, so at 160 mph the total > download is around five times the car's weight. I think that is a little OTT. At about 100-125 mph the downforce from aerodynamics is about equal to the weight of the car. It approaches a 2:1 ratio at the top speed of the car. That is according to '99 Ferrari data.

Nick <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > "Jonny Hodgson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:Uy6N8.16014$[email hidden]... > > Bear in mind that the download on the tyres is doubled at > > around 70-80 mph due to downforce, so at 160 mph the total > > download is around five times the car's weight. > > I think that is a little OTT. At about 100-125 mph the downforce from > aerodynamics is about equal to the weight of the car. It approaches a 2:1 > ratio at the top speed of the car. That is according to '99 Ferrari data.

Okay, I was a touch off with my initial estimate for downforce=weight. Wings are smaller than they used to be... That's still a total download of three times the car's static weight at max speed, which should make it pretty hard to lock up. Jonny

"Jonny Hodgson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<DF8N8.16538$[email hidden]>... > Okay, I was a touch off with my initial estimate for > downforce=weight. Wings are smaller than they used to be... Yes, but the bigger factor in the reduction of grip in an F1 car are the grooved tires. In the pre-grooved tire days, it was very possible for a driver to lock the brakes if applying too much pressure. In theory, applying the correct amount of pressure in order to avoid wheel locking should be more difficult now that the size of the contact patch has decreased. I finally found an article that at least has some reference to this phenomenon: http://www.itfl.co.uk/racetech/issue29/f12kbrake.htm "With the current generation of grooved Formula One tyre, driveability is a major issue under braking. Aerodynamic downforce is a function of the square of speed and consequently there is a pronounced drop off as road speed falls under braking. This reduction in aerodynamic grip combined with the inferior performance of current grooved tyres compared to slicks makes it a challenge for the driver to avoid wheel locking." If the reason the brakes in F1 2001 do not lock up is the downforce/grip, then why isn't it possible to lock them in wet conditions, when grip is significantly reduced? I can load F1 2001 right now, set the conditions to monsoon, put on hard/cold tires to minimize the grip, and still not lock the brakes above 80kmh. Yes, an increase in grip caused by the extra downforce at high speed will require extra pressure to be applied to the brakes in order to lock them, but that is ridiculous. Still, if you can find an article by an engineer or driver at the F1 level indicating that brakes will not lock above 80kmh, I will gladly admit defeat in this argument. Jason

You make some good points, however I doubt very much that the shallow longitudinal grooves in the tires affect either braking or acceleration, they should really only affect lateral forces, and even then only slightly, as can be seen by the fact that lap times have continued to get faster despite the grooved tires. "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "Jonny Hodgson" <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:<DF8N8.16538$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (40 lines)

> > > Okay, I was a touch off with my initial estimate for > > downforce=weight. Wings are smaller than they used to be... > > Yes, but the bigger factor in the reduction of grip in an F1 car are > the grooved tires. > > In the pre-grooved tire days, it was very possible for a driver to > lock the brakes if applying too much pressure. In theory, applying > the correct amount of pressure in order to avoid wheel locking should > be more difficult now that the size of the contact patch has > decreased. > > I finally found an article that at least has some reference to this > phenomenon: > > http://www.itfl.co.uk/racetech/issue29/f12kbrake.htm > > "With the current generation of grooved Formula One tyre, driveability > is a major issue under braking. Aerodynamic downforce is a function of > the square of speed and consequently there is a pronounced drop off as > road speed falls under braking. This reduction in aerodynamic grip > combined with the inferior performance of current grooved tyres > compared to slicks makes it a challenge for the driver to avoid wheel > locking." > > If the reason the brakes in F1 2001 do not lock up is the > downforce/grip, then why isn't it possible to lock them in wet > conditions, when grip is significantly reduced? I can load F1 2001 > right now, set the conditions to monsoon, put on hard/cold tires to > minimize the grip, and still not lock the brakes above 80kmh. Yes, an > increase in grip caused by the extra downforce at high speed will > require extra pressure to be applied to the brakes in order to lock > them, but that is ridiculous. > > Still, if you can find an article by an engineer or driver at the F1 > level indicating that brakes will not lock above 80kmh, I will gladly > admit defeat in this argument. > > Jason

"Haqsau" <[email hidden]> writes: > You make some good points, however I doubt very much that the shallow > longitudinal grooves in the tires affect either braking or acceleration, Huh? Last time I checked (Truth be told, I haven't actually checked.) air had far less grip than rubber or whatever they make tires out of nowadays. > they should really only affect lateral forces, Again: Huh? Heard about the friction circle lately? > and even then only > slightly, as can be seen by the fact that lap times have continued to > get faster despite the grooved tires. They probably have made progress engine, suspension, brake, TC, drivetrain, aero and tire technology since they introduced the grooves. And they use tires where the grooves have worn down nowadays. -- -asbjxrn

"Asbj�rn Bj�rnstad" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> writes: > > > You make some good points, however I doubt very much that theshallow > > longitudinal grooves in the tires affect either braking oracceleration, > > Huh? > Last time I checked (Truth be told, I haven't actually checked.) air > had far less grip than rubber or whatever they make tires out of > nowadays. Area isn't what makes traction, tread stability is what makes traction. Or rather, lack of tread stability is what causes loss of traction. On a perfectly stable undistorted tire tread the friction coefficient would be constant and the force you get would not depend on tread area. On a real tire that friction coefficient gets reduced by tread distortion caused by everything from inflation pressure to uneven loading to tread depth and shape. > > they should really only affect lateral forces, > > Again: Huh? > Heard about the friction circle lately? Ever taken a class in vehicle dynamics? Ever work in the auto industry? I am well acquainted with vehicle handling and dynamics from both a scholastic and a professional point of view. You OTOH are not, you are just mouthing things you have read on the internet. Read my explanation of tread stability above and then sit and ponder what longitudinal grooves would do to that. Sit and ponder for a LONG time please. > > and even then only > > slightly, as can be seen by the fact that lap times have continuedto > > get faster despite the grooved tires. > > They probably have made progress engine, suspension, brake, TC,drivetrain, > aero and tire technology since they introduced the grooves. And theyuse > tires where the grooves have worn down nowadays. > -- > -asbjxrn

"Haqsau" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (19 lines)

> "Asbj�rn Bj�rnstad" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> writes: > > > > > You make some good points, however I doubt very much that the shallow > > > longitudinal grooves in the tires affect either braking or acceleration, > > > > Huh? > > Last time I checked (Truth be told, I haven't actually checked.) air > > had far less grip than rubber or whatever they make tires out of > > nowadays. > > Area isn't what makes traction, tread stability is what makes traction. > Or rather, lack of tread stability is what causes loss of traction. On > a perfectly stable undistorted tire tread the friction coefficient would > be constant and the force you get would not depend on tread area. On a > real tire that friction coefficient gets reduced by tread distortion > caused by everything from inflation pressure to uneven loading to tread > depth and shape.

Point taken, a slick will lose (some/most) of it's grip if you cut lots of razor thin lines in it because the many small parts of rubber won't be as stable as the solid "block" even though the area is the same. And since the threads don't break up the tire longitudinally, they should affect grip much. But the increased area would also give a lower pressure in the tire/tarmac contact patch. I thought that would increase the friction coefficient? My memory claims that it used to work that way in the past. OTOH that memory is probably hearsay, although from somewhat credible people. Isn't that why you want big slicks, not just slicks?

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > > they should really only affect lateral forces, > > > > Again: Huh? > > Heard about the friction circle lately? > > Ever taken a class in vehicle dynamics? Ever work in the auto industry? > I am well acquainted with vehicle handling and dynamics from both a > scholastic and a professional point of view. You OTOH are not, you are > just mouthing things you have read on the internet. Read my explanation > of tread stability above and then sit and ponder what longitudinal > grooves would do to that. Sit and ponder for a LONG time please.

You're right of course. It was a uneccesarily sarcastic answer, even more so since as you say, I don't really know what I am mouthing off about. I'm sorry about that. What does actually thread (in)stability mean? Is it related to the contact patch shape only or does "flex" from the contact patch to the bottom of the thread matter? What about a round (Motor)bike tire where the center of the tire is longer than the edges? Aren't the threads so far apart that the "slick" parts between them should be stable? (Depends on what thread stability is of course.) I don't know the dimensions, but it looks like well over an inch. -- -asbjxrn

"Asbj�rn Bj�rnstad" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > Point taken, a slick will lose (some/most) of it's grip if you cut > lots of razor thin lines in it because the many small parts of rubber > won't be as stable as the solid "block" even though the area is the > same. And since the threads don't break up the tire longitudinally, > they should affect grip much. > But the increased area would also give a lower pressure in the > tire/tarmac contact patch. I thought that would increase the friction > coefficient? My memory claims that it used to work that way in the > past. OTOH that memory is probably hearsay, although from somewhat > credible people. Isn't that why you want big slicks, not just slicks?

Yes, lower pressure leading to higher friction coefficient is generally true in a practical sense, but I believe the mechanism causing this is still tread distortion. IOW if you take an unstressed chunk of rubber and put an even pressure across it, the friction coefficient will be the same no matter what the pressure is (unless it gets into sliding friction, more about that below). Put that same chunk of rubber on a tire that changes shape depending on the pressure, and now the traction coefficient changes (I'm old school, we used to refer to traction coefficients for tires to emphasize the fact that it does not work exactly like classical friction). > You're right of course. It was a uneccesarily sarcastic answer, even > more so since as you say, I don't really know what I am mouthing off > about. I'm sorry about that. Apology accepted, and I'm sorry I jumped on you so hard. The classy thing to do would have been to ignore you. ;o) What can I say, I was tired. > What does actually thread (in)stability mean? Is it related to the > contact patch shape only or does "flex" from the contact patch to the > bottom of the thread matter? What about a round (Motor)bike tire where > the center of the tire is longer than the edges? Okay, you probably already know some of this, but bear with me so I can explain it fully. Because tires are made of a flexible material, they stretch when you pull on them. So when a piece of tire rotates through the contact patch, and there is a force applied to the tire, the material stretches as it passes through the contact patch, and then snaps back as it comes out of the contact patch. This makes it appear like the tire is always slipping, so under acceleration or braking we have a slip ratio, and in cornering we have a slip angle. This stretching occurs not just in the tire carcass itself, but also in the tread elements. The first thing that greater tread stability accomplishes is to reduce this slippage. So slicks will not go to as high a slip angle as a fully treaded tire, or as high a slip ratio in acceleration or braking. But here is the first part of my premise - I don't think a longitudinal groove in the tire will have much of an affect on the distortion of the tire under acceleration or braking, so I don't think the slip ratio will change in those situations. Also, since there is so little material that has been removed, I don't even think it will have a big effect on the slip angle behavior in cornering. It is hard for me to see how those small grooves and some slight additional thickness in the rubber between them will change the amount that the tread stretches when a force is applied to it. But slip behavior and traction are not the same thing, admittedly. I am not a tire expert, but I have looked at a fair amount of data and worked with some simulations, and I have formed an opinion on what is going on. And BTW my opinion is fairly similar to a number of SAE papers I have read, so there is at least a slim possibility that I might be right. ;o) If you look at a tire, with or without tread, you can mentally or computationally cut it up into small elements, calculate the forces on those elements, and add them up to get the full force. Each element that is towards the center of a tread block is going to be fairly stable. As you get towards the edges the elements will start to bend significantly when force is applied. Also each element will have a slightly different normal force applied to it. Now under classic friction theory, as long as we are talking about static friction, the coefficient is constant. That being the case, I could distribute the load any way I wanted to over these elements and the total lateral force they generate should come out the same. BUT, if the normal force gets too low, and the element is free to move, it will behave more like sliding friction than static friction. That is exactly what I would expect to happen at the edge of a tread block, especially if the force is applied transversely to that edge. Since sliding friction coefficients are generally lower than static friction coefficients, these elements are no longer doing a proportionate amount of the work, and the overall traction is decreased. That could also happen if the tire were simply so distorted at some point that a part of the tire had insufficient pressure on it to maintain static friction. This is what happens at the rear of the contact patch as you approach loss of traction. It is also what happens with improper inflation pressure, or incorrect camber angle. Basically the more even the pressure across the contact patch, the more likely that the entire contact patch is doing its job. > Aren't the threads so far apart that the "slick" parts between them > should be stable? (Depends on what thread stability is of course.) I > don't know the dimensions, but it looks like well over an inch. If I understand your question correctly then yes, and that is exactly why I think it has little effect. The grooves are spaced widely apart, and the tread between them is not very tall, therefore it should be very stable still. I know that was kind of a long winded explanation and I didn't really take the time to proof read it very well. I hope it made some sense. Please feel free to ask more questions if it does not make sense. I may get grouchy occasionally, but I honestly do not mind a well intended question. ;o)

jason moyer <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> If the reason the brakes in F1 2001 do not lock up is the > downforce/grip, then why isn't it possible to lock them in wet > conditions, when grip is significantly reduced? I can load F1 2001 > right now, set the conditions to monsoon, put on hard/cold tires to > minimize the grip, and still not lock the brakes above 80kmh. Yes, an > increase in grip caused by the extra downforce at high speed will > require extra pressure to be applied to the brakes in order to lock > them, but that is ridiculous. > > Still, if you can find an article by an engineer or driver at the F1 > level indicating that brakes will not lock above 80kmh, I will gladly > admit defeat in this argument.

Well, I don't have the time currently to go digging through my pile of Race Techs, but I'll stick to my belief that it's impossible to lock the wheels at high speed. Where the cut-off speed is, I'm not sure; I don't have F1 2001 so can't comment directly. I'd expect pedal advantage to have remained fairly low, though, since Al-Be(?) calipers were outlawed as the reduced caliper stiffness affected modulation. Jonny