Rally Trophy - patch

Great game. Even greater after the patch. I really admire these drivers in a Fiat Abbarth at that time. How could they win anything at all with that car? Rear engine is NOT a very good solution :o) unless it is in a Formula 1 car -- B.T.

"B�rge T." wrote... > Great game. Even greater after the patch. > I really admire these drivers in a Fiat Abbarth at > that time. How could they win anything at all with > that car? Rear engine is NOT a very good solution > :o) unless it is in a Formula 1 car Rear engine wouldn't be a good idea in an F1 either. Jan. =--- "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn.

On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 19:07:01 +0100, "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Rear engine wouldn't be a good idea in an F1 either. Err.. huh? Andre >Jan. >=--- >"Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn. > >

"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 19:07:01 +0100, "Jan Verschueren" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Rear engine wouldn't be a good idea in an F1 either. > > Err.. huh? > > Andre

Seconded: Err....huh? (Maybe the original note came to us through time from the 50's)

I'll take a shot...maybe because MID engine works so much better? :-) SB "Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 21:09:31 GMT, "Rob Adams" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >news:[email hidden]... > >> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 19:07:01 +0100, "Jan Verschueren" > >> <[email hidden]> wrote: > >> > >> >Rear engine wouldn't be a good idea in an F1 either. > >> > >> Err.. huh? > >> > >> Andre > > > >Seconded: Err....huh? > > > >(Maybe the original note came to us through time from the 50's) > > Hehe.. nah.. knowing Jan there must be some joke hidden in his post.. > > Andre

On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 21:09:31 GMT, "Rob Adams" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

>"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 19:07:01 +0100, "Jan Verschueren" >> <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >> >Rear engine wouldn't be a good idea in an F1 either. >> >> Err.. huh? >> >> Andre > >Seconded: Err....huh? > >(Maybe the original note came to us through time from the 50's)

Hehe.. nah.. knowing Jan there must be some joke hidden in his post.. Andre

Oh god, not that debate. In my world, "rear" engine means the engine is behind the driver, "front" engine means the engine is in front of the driver. To me, "mid" engine would require the driver to be sitting on the engine. I know, the technical definition has to do with where the engine is in relation to the axles, but that always seemed pretty picky to me. "Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Ecfb8.23296$[email hidden]... > I'll take a shot...maybe because MID engine works so much better? :-) > > SB > > "Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in messagenews:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (23 lines)

> > On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 21:09:31 GMT, "Rob Adams" > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > >news:[email hidden]... > > >> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 19:07:01 +0100, "Jan Verschueren" > > >> <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >> > > >> >Rear engine wouldn't be a good idea in an F1 either. > > >> > > >> Err.. huh? > > >> > > >> Andre > > > > > >Seconded: Err....huh? > > > > > >(Maybe the original note came to us through time from the 50's) > > > > Hehe.. nah.. knowing Jan there must be some joke hidden in his post.. > > > > Andre > >

"Andre Warringa" wrote... > Err.. huh? F1 cars are mid-engined, this is the most favourable configuration in terms of weight distribution. Jan. =--- "Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn

On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 21:48:07 GMT, "Rob Adams" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Oh god, not that debate. In my world, "rear" engine means the engine is >behind the driver, "front" engine means the engine is in front of the >driver. To me, "mid" engine would require the driver to be sitting on the >engine. > >I know, the technical definition has to do with where the engine is in >relation to the axles, but that always seemed pretty picky to me.

Yes.. your definition is logical, I never knew there was a discussion about this :) Andre

On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 22:57:47 +0100, "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote: >"Andre Warringa" wrote... >> Err.. huh? > >F1 cars are mid-engined, this is the most favourable configuration in terms >of weight distribution. Uh-oh.. there -is- a discussion about the definition :)) Andre > >Jan. >=--- >"Pay attention when I'm talking to you boy!" -Foghorn Leghorn >

"Andre Warringa" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 22:57:47 +0100, "Jan Verschueren" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >"Andre Warringa" wrote... > >> Err.. huh? > > > >F1 cars are mid-engined, this is the most favourable configuration in

terms > >of weight distribution. > > Uh-oh.. there -is- a discussion about the definition :)) Oh yeah, there sure is. It's the topic of much debate among my Porsche-owning friends. They were all very offended when the Toyota MR-2 came out and was advertised as a mid-engine car. Car guys will fight about anything :)

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "Andre Warringa" wrote... > > Err.. huh? > > F1 cars are mid-engined, this is the most favourable configuration interms > of weight distribution. > > Jan. > =--- ...and, also because mid-engined cars like F1 (I've never heard modern F1 referred to as rear-engined before!?!) have a lower polar moment of inertia. Dumbed-down, this means they change direction better, because the mass is concentrated closer to the centre (centre = mid). GMF

Andre Warringa wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 22:57:47 +0100, "Jan Verschueren" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >"Andre Warringa" wrote... > >> Err.. huh? > > > >F1 cars are mid-engined, this is the most favourable configuration in terms > >of weight distribution. > > Uh-oh.. there -is- a discussion about the definition :))

Ok, I had a 1942 Willy's Jeep a couple of years ago, the engine was behind the front axle, guess it was mid engined too then....:-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com http://www.teammirage.com "A woman is an occasional pleasure but a cigar is always a smoke" --Groucho Marx--

M = mid-engined, R = rear wheel drive, 2 = seater -- all very complex. Fellow hairdresser's-car pilot Remco will no doubt confirm... ;-) SB "Rob Adams" <[email hidden]> wrote... <snip> > Oh yeah, there sure is. It's the topic of much debate among my > Porsche-owning friends. They were all very offended when the Toyota MR-2 > came out and was advertised as a mid-engine car.

"Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht news:a4hb8.23561$[email hidden]... > M = mid-engined, R = rear wheel drive, 2 = seater -- all very complex.Fellow hairdresser's-car pilot Remco will no doubt confirm... ;-) As another fellow MR2 driver I can tell you that Toyota says it means Midship Runabout, go figure! Technically it IS a midengined car of course - if only just <g> Bye, Leo (not a hairdresser)

Hows the multiplayer. "B�rge T." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Great game. Even greater after the patch. > I really admire these drivers in a Fiat Abbarth at that time. How couldthey

Quoted text (10 lines)

> win anything at all with that car? Rear engine is NOT a very good solution > :o) unless it is in a Formula 1 car > > > -- > B.T. > > > >

I just ordered rally trophy. where do I get the patch?? RBB "G M Fude" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3c6d980d$0$16634$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > "Andre Warringa" wrote... > > > Err.. huh? > > > > F1 cars are mid-engined, this is the most favourable configuration in > terms > > of weight distribution. > > > > Jan. > > =--- > > ...and, also because mid-engined cars like F1 (I've never heard modern F1 > referred to as rear-engined before!?!) have a lower polar moment of

inertia. > Dumbed-down, this means they change direction better, because the mass is > concentrated closer to the centre (centre = mid). > > GMF > >

G M Fude ([email hidden]) wrote on 15 Feb 2002: > ...and, also because mid-engined cars like F1 (I've never heard > modern F1 referred to as rear-engined before!?!)<snip> A totally unscientific Google search gives: mid-engined grand prix - 443 results rear-engined grand prix - 580 results Personally, I use "rear" as the 1960-ish change from in front to behind the driver is easily explained in that way. I really couldn't care less where the axles are as far as F1 is concerned! -- "After all, a mere thousand yards... such a harmless little knoll, really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh. The GPL Scrapyard: bits 'n' bobs at http://www.hillclimbfan.f2s.com

"Roger Bolt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bmib8.34369$[email hidden]... > I just ordered rally trophy. where do I get the patch?? > RBB Surprisingly, its at http://rally.jowood.com/rally-e/index.php and NOCD crack for it is now available at http://www.gamecopyworld.com/ (I hate having to find the right CD in a shelf full). -- Laurence Wilmer [email hidden]

In article <rmfb8.4393$7n.10449@shaw-ty1>, "Rob Adams" <[email hidden]> writes: >I know, the technical definition has to do with where the engine is in >relation to the axles, but that always seemed pretty picky to me. > It's not picky when the difference in handling is massive. It took Porsche twenty years to get the snap oversteer out of the 911. A perfect example is the recommended tire pressures for the early Beetle and Corvair. 32 rear and 17 front causing the front tires to work poorly to reduce the tendancy to back into the scenery. For high performance, mid engine is usually the best solution and rear engine is usually the worst. Please note the word usually, these are generalisations and there are exceptions. Don McCorkle

"Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > Ok, I had a 1942 Willy's Jeep a couple of years ago, the engine was > behind the front axle, guess it was mid engined too then....:-) > So was the original Mazda RX7, I think, with that little beer keg of a motor mounted behind the front axle. Stephen

On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 23:45:10 GMT, "Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote: >M = mid-engined, R = rear wheel drive, 2 = seater -- all very complex. Fellow hairdresser's-car pilot Remco will no doubt >confirm... ;-) Hehe. Indeed. Remco

Quoted text (8 lines)

>"Rob Adams" <[email hidden]> wrote... ><snip> >> Oh yeah, there sure is. It's the topic of much debate among my >> Porsche-owning friends. They were all very offended when the Toyota MR-2 >> came out and was advertised as a mid-engine car. > > >

"Stephen F." wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > "Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > Ok, I had a 1942 Willy's Jeep a couple of years ago, the engine was > > behind the front axle, guess it was mid engined too then....:-) > > > > So was the original Mazda RX7, I think, with that little beer keg of a motor > mounted behind the front axle.

"little beer keg of a motor".....funny, true but funny :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com