GPL - question for alexti or any GPL expert

I occasionally do sessions with GPL, working on improving my rank, 1% at a time per track. Trying to get sub 99% now (just below negative). Current rank is -12, but a lot of that is due to an 8:15.32 at Nurburg (wanted to join the 500 second club so started up again with GPL about a month ago). Monaco was my worst track (in terms of percentage versus refererence time), but now down to 1:28.76 (not quite a sub 99%). Kyalami will be next. How does overall spring / shocks stiffness affect the cars in GPL? I've been typically using 120/90, and Alison Hines setups are even stiffer (but outside the range of what the game allows). What setups do you recommend? I'm using two joysticks (left for throttle/brake, right to steer), which so far seems to be ok for me (and I've read that there are a couple of real fast GPL players using joysticks). I have a momo racing wheel and pedals, but it's a hassle to setup.

"Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:tM%0f.13167$lq6.3808@fed1read01:

Quoted text (14 lines)

> I occasionally do sessions with GPL, working on improving my > rank, 1% at a time per track. Trying to get sub 99% now (just below > negative). Current rank is -12, but a lot of that is due to an 8:15.32 > at Nurburg (wanted to join the 500 second club so started up again > with GPL about a month ago). > > Monaco was my worst track (in terms of percentage versus refererence > time), but now down to 1:28.76 (not quite a sub 99%). Kyalami will > be next. > > How does overall spring / shocks stiffness affect the cars in GPL? > I've been typically using 120/90, and Alison Hines setups are even > stiffer (but outside the range of what the game allows). What setups > do you recommend?

Setups is a bit of a personal prefernce, but at Monaco I'd run much softer, something like 60/80 (front/rear). Is your 120/90 front/rear or rear/front? At the Ring I run a bit stiffer, perhaps 80/100 (exact setting will depend on car), at the 'Ring there's a bottom out issue to deal with, so you may want to run a bit stiffer than you would otherwise. Generally, shocks and dampers affect the car a lot in GPL. Spring stiffness is usually set for the track, and most drivers will have similar stiffness, but damper settings are very much individual. In most cases you'd set them to balance the car the way you like at the corner entry and at the exit. It is related with your differrential settings and toe-in/toe-out. Generally, there're 2 schools of thought. Some drivers prefer to have baseline setup and use it everywhere with minor modifications and other drivers run very different setups on different tracks. I am more of the latter, I have 4 different types of setups. If you're looking for setup collections, check GPL Addicts: http://gpladdicts.speedgeezers.com/ If BRM is your car of choice I strongly recomend Michiel's Pompert who is a renown BRM master. For all other cars I usually try Paul Jackson's setups if I don't have my own. But you can try setups from other guys there too, you may find them more suitable to your style. Though when I was starting GPL I was struggling at first even at Monza, but then I've found Wolfgang Woeger's setups and suddenly the car was handling nicely and I've quickly beaten all benchmarks using his setups. In fact, I was using mostly his setups until I got into -30 or -40 range. Alex.

One thing I noticed with GH setups is that he went from soft springs (GH1 setups) to stiff springs (GH2 setups). Is there a reason for this?

"Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:Sd11f.13257$lq6.9915@fed1read01: > One thing I noticed with GH setups is that he went from > soft springs (GH1 setups) to stiff springs (GH2 setups). > Is there a reason for this?Huttu is an alien, I find his GH2 setups virtually undriveable (not because of springs but general instability - you need to be an alien to go fast with those setups :>) Alex.

>> One thing I noticed with GH setups is that he went from >> soft springs (GH1 setups) to stiff springs (GH2 setups). >> Is there a reason for this? > Huttu is an alien, I find his GH2 setups virtually undriveable (not because > of springs but general instability - you need to be an alien to go fast > with those setups :>) The GH setups were just an example. It seems that most of the later setups used stiffer spring settings.

> The GH setups were just an example. It seems that most of > the later setups used stiffer spring settings. I actually quite like Huttu's setups. Of all the aliens, I find his setups to be the most drivable for me.

I believe it was Alison or her brother who found out that you don't get punished for overly stiff suspensions in GPL. The single most annoying thing with GPL, mind you. The second most annoying is the slip angle/grip curve, but that is a different story. And after that everybody switched to super stiff suspensions because it was faster. I can presume that this was the reason for Greger to switch to stiff suspensions as wel.. ---A--- On 06.10.2005 05:54, Jeff Reid wrote: > One thing I noticed with GH setups is that he went from > soft springs (GH1 setups) to stiff springs (GH2 setups). > Is there a reason for this? > > >

> The second most annoying is the slip angle/grip curve. What's the issue with this curve?

Asgeir Nesoen <[email hidden]> wrote in news:di3avb$kr6$[email hidden]: > I believe it was Alison or her brother who found out that you don't get > punished for overly stiff suspensions in GPL. The single most annoying > thing with GPL, mind you.That's first time I hear about it. I'm checking collection of GH setups, his original one (GH1) are marked GH and the new ones GH2. Are we talking about the same GH [=Greger Huttu]? They are 60/75 at Monaco, GH2 is 60/80. At Silverstone, GH1 is 80/90, GH2 is 70/80. At Kyalami GH1 is 85/100, GH2 is 80/75. With stiff suspension you lose traction, but gain faster response. So the alien tendency seems to be to go softer and deal with unresponsive car. I don't know if realistically you're supposed to lose even more traction. In any case, different stiffness is optimal for different tracks. > The second most annoying is the slip > angle/grip curve, but that is a different story.Something is definitely wrong in GPL tyre model. Try to slam the brakes in the middle of Monza straight and wait until the car stops. Save replay and look in replay analyser from what speed you've stopped and how long did it take you. Then you can easily calculate friction coefficient of tyres. AFAIR, it comes to something around 1.2, which is similar to characteristics of modern slicks and probably too much for '67 tyres. At least it's definitely not compatible with tyre durability. Alex.

Quoted text (12 lines)

>> I believe it was Alison or her brother who found out that you don't get >> punished for overly stiff suspensions in GPL. The single most annoying >> thing with GPL, mind you. > That's first time I hear about it. I'm checking collection of GH setups, > his original one (GH1) are marked GH and the new ones GH2. Are we talking > about the same GH [=Greger Huttu]? They are 60/75 at Monaco, GH2 is 60/80. > At Silverstone, GH1 is 80/90, GH2 is 70/80. At Kyalami GH1 is 85/100, GH2 > is 80/75. With stiff suspension you lose traction, but gain faster > response. So the alien tendency seems to be to go softer and deal with > unresponsive car. I don't know if realistically you're supposed to lose > even more traction. In any case, different stiffness is optimal for > different tracks.

Sorry, I picked the wrong example, it seems that other, later setups used stiffer springs. Alison's are very high, over 150. I haven't tried them though. Will take your advice and try softer springs. I usually set swaybars around 160/160 or 170/170 for the Lotus, should I try softer, like 150/150?

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> The second most annoying is the slip angle/grip curve > Something is definitely wrong in GPL tyre model. Try to slam the brakes in > the middle of Monza straight and wait until the car stops. Save replay and > look in replay analyser from what speed you've stopped and how long did it > take you. Then you can easily calculate friction coefficient of tyres. > AFAIR, it comes to something around 1.2, which is similar to > characteristics of modern slicks and probably too much for '67 tyres. At > least it's definitely not compatible with tyre durability.

How sticky the tires are depends on the weight of the car. In the case of Caterhams, Formula Vee's, Formula Fords, ..., the bias ply racing slicks for these cars allow them to pull around 1.4 to 1.5gs in corners, and I assume braking g forces are a bit higher. At around 1500 lbs, the 1967 F1's should have been able to use fairly sticky soft compound bias ply racing slicks, 1.2 doesn't seem like too much to me. Bias ply racing slicks have a characteristic that grip barely lowers when exceeding the limits, they are very forgiving tires. This is why they are still very popular on non-downforce racing cars. You can still spin, but the tires really let you push the limits much more than a standard (non-racing) radial tire would allow. If you look at the slip angle / force curve of a bias ply slick, after the peak force, the curve is almost horizontal. With a conventional radial tire, the curve drops off significantly beyond peak force. Racing radials are designed to have less of this drop off in grip, but it's still there. The bias ply tires need more slip angle, and this isn't good for a downforce car, since a slip angle of around 5 degrees means that the aerodynamic drag is also pulling the car outwards when turning. The radial racing tires max out around 2 degrees of slip angle (maybe 3, will have to do another web search on this again).

"Jeff Reid" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:Qzj1f.19575$lq6.19082@fed1read01:

Quoted text (16 lines)

>>> I believe it was Alison or her brother who found out that you don't >>> get punished for overly stiff suspensions in GPL. The single most >>> annoying thing with GPL, mind you. >> That's first time I hear about it. I'm checking collection of GH >> setups, his original one (GH1) are marked GH and the new ones GH2. Are >> we talking about the same GH [=Greger Huttu]? They are 60/75 at >> Monaco, GH2 is 60/80. At Silverstone, GH1 is 80/90, GH2 is 70/80. At >> Kyalami GH1 is 85/100, GH2 is 80/75. With stiff suspension you lose >> traction, but gain faster response. So the alien tendency seems to be >> to go softer and deal with unresponsive car. I don't know if >> realistically you're supposed to lose even more traction. In any case, >> different stiffness is optimal for different tracks. > > Sorry, I picked the wrong example, it seems that other, later setups > used stiffer springs. Alison's are very high, over 150. I haven't > tried them though. Will take your advice and try softer springs.

I think Alison's setups are mostly targeted for novices. I don't know any fast driver who is using them. I know only one reason to run very stiff setup (120+) - that is if you expect to jump a lot. But there aren't that many tracks that require it. It was a useful method in GPLRallies though. > I usually set swaybars around 160/160 or 170/170 for the Lotus, > should I try softer, like 150/150?Either sounds reasonable. I usually run something within 130-180 range, depending on the track. You use front/rear ratio to adjust the car balance in a long corners.

Quoted text (17 lines)

>>> The second most annoying is the slip angle/grip curve > >> Something is definitely wrong in GPL tyre model. Try to slam the >> brakes in the middle of Monza straight and wait until the car stops. >> Save replay and look in replay analyser from what speed you've stopped >> and how long did it take you. Then you can easily calculate friction >> coefficient of tyres. AFAIR, it comes to something around 1.2, which >> is similar to characteristics of modern slicks and probably too much >> for '67 tyres. At least it's definitely not compatible with tyre >> durability. > > How sticky the tires are depends on the weight of the car. In the > case of Caterhams, Formula Vee's, Formula Fords, ..., the bias ply > racing slicks for these cars allow them to pull around 1.4 to 1.5gs in > corners, and I assume braking g forces are a bit higher. At around 1500 > lbs, the 1967 F1's should have been able to use fairly sticky soft > compound bias ply racing slicks, 1.2 doesn't seem like too much to me.

I couldn't find any hard data on what coefficient was in 1967, but considering how much improvement in tyres is done every year in F1 I suspect that in 1967 they have much poorer tyres. Alex.