Re: 1998 vs 1967 :-)

John Fryatt wrote: > I've had GPL for a while now, and I've just got GP3. Wait! No this isn't > another GP3 vs GPL tirade. :-) It's more to do with Grand Prix racing in > the different eras. The tracks of 1967 were definitely more interesting and fun to drive - at least within the safety of your own home. I certainly understand and sympathize with the need to make racing less perilous for the real world drivers. Unfortunately, the safety compromises have made most of the modern tracks relatively boring. There are still some good ones on the modern calendar - particularly Spa and Suzuka - but some of those old circuits (the Ring!) were magnificent. Thankfully, we have GPL to experience to some degree what it was like ... and without getting killed in the process. Dave Ewing -- ***************************************************** David A. Ewing Xilinx Boulder [email hidden] *****************************************************

On the other hand, 1998 has its own "aesthetic". GP3 (and the other modern sims) hint at the sensation that you are piloting a craft on the razor's edge. One moment you have control, the next moment you are off. What is required with the 1998 GP cars, besides lightning reflexes, is the ability to read what the car is doing up to the point when it steps out. Once it's gone, it's really gone (ok, there are quite a few superhumans in this newsgroup, but I'm just a passenger once a GP3 car really loses the back end). In the 1967 cars, you feel what the car is doing up until you lose it, but then continue to work with the car way beyond that point. A lot of that comes down to the aero and the smaller slip angles of modern tires. The other appeal of the modern era is the sheer acceleration out of the corners, the ridiculous braking levels and the speed carried through corners. Driving Monaco in GP3 really drives home the point of how quick these cars are. I like both eras, and I like both sims. Stephen John Fryatt <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8ndtkh$ge8$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Hi all, > > I've had GPL for a while now, and I've just got GP3. Wait! No this isn't > another GP3 vs GPL tirade. :-) It's more to do with Grand Prix racing in > the different eras. > > Assuming both sims are fairly realistic, I found it interesting to compare > the way the tracks are designed and the way the cars run on them in 1967

and > in 1998. > Seems that in 1967 you could get some lovely long straights and really get > the car howling down them (Ferrari V12 - mmmm!). Also the cornering seemsto > require a smooth technique and good car control, whereas the 1998 > tracks/cars seem a lot more 'point and squirt' and I can yank on the > steering in a way that would have the 1967 car off the track. > I guess the 98 cars are a lot more powerful, have loads more grip, and can > also go much deeper into corners before braking, obviously leading toquite > a different feel to the cars. > Also, I can see why they are there, but it's a shame about the chicanes in > all the tracks now. > > I like both sims and continue to play them, but aesthetically I think Ilike

Quoted text (7 lines)

> 1967 better. > > What do you think? > > John > >

Hi all, I've had GPL for a while now, and I've just got GP3. Wait! No this isn't another GP3 vs GPL tirade. :-) It's more to do with Grand Prix racing in the different eras. Assuming both sims are fairly realistic, I found it interesting to compare the way the tracks are designed and the way the cars run on them in 1967 and in 1998. Seems that in 1967 you could get some lovely long straights and really get the car howling down them (Ferrari V12 - mmmm!). Also the cornering seems to require a smooth technique and good car control, whereas the 1998 tracks/cars seem a lot more 'point and squirt' and I can yank on the steering in a way that would have the 1967 car off the track. I guess the 98 cars are a lot more powerful, have loads more grip, and can also go much deeper into corners before braking, obviously leading to quite a different feel to the cars. Also, I can see why they are there, but it's a shame about the chicanes in all the tracks now. I like both sims and continue to play them, but aesthetically I think I like 1967 better. What do you think? John

I think that chicanes are total crud, unless they are wide, open, with big kerb hopping potential; or come complete with a nice brick wall ;-) (for sim racing, that is..) Phil John Fryatt wrote:

Quoted text (27 lines)

> > Hi all, > > I've had GPL for a while now, and I've just got GP3. Wait! No this isn't > another GP3 vs GPL tirade. :-) It's more to do with Grand Prix racing in > the different eras. > > Assuming both sims are fairly realistic, I found it interesting to compare > the way the tracks are designed and the way the cars run on them in 1967 and > in 1998. > Seems that in 1967 you could get some lovely long straights and really get > the car howling down them (Ferrari V12 - mmmm!). Also the cornering seems to > require a smooth technique and good car control, whereas the 1998 > tracks/cars seem a lot more 'point and squirt' and I can yank on the > steering in a way that would have the 1967 car off the track. > I guess the 98 cars are a lot more powerful, have loads more grip, and can > also go much deeper into corners before braking, obviously leading to quite > a different feel to the cars. > Also, I can see why they are there, but it's a shame about the chicanes in > all the tracks now. > > I like both sims and continue to play them, but aesthetically I think I like > 1967 better. > > What do you think? > > John

On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 12:23:56 +0100, "John Fryatt" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Hi all,<snip> > >I like both sims and continue to play them, but aesthetically I think I like >1967 better. > >What do you think? I agree, and I'm quite sure most of the GPL addicts here agree... Andre >John >

On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 12:23:56 +0100, "John Fryatt" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I like both sims and continue to play them, but aesthetically I think I like >1967 better. > >What do you think? The way I look at it... In 1998, the cars had just been constrained for the second time since 1994. F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport, but the rule restrictions conspired to make the cars into ungainly l racing machines. Of course I enjoy watching Michael Schumacher visibly wringing out a qualifying lap on a stiff, narrow-track, grooved-tire Ferrari. For the most part, however, the sight of 98-spec cars on the track just looked unnatural. In contrast, 1967 marked the second year of the 3.0L era. The greatest limit in car design was the imagination, while the tracks were similarly wide-open and dangerous. For the feeling of freedom alone, I prefer 1967. However, I really wouldn't mind seeing a sim based on the high-tech, high-downforce cars of 1993! Martin Long Live Nigel Mansell!

"Martin Ursua" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:399bedac.28365716@news... > On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 12:23:56 +0100, "John Fryatt" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >I like both sims and continue to play them, but aesthetically I think Ilike

Quoted text (18 lines)

> >1967 better. > > > >What do you think? > > The way I look at it... In 1998, the cars had just been > constrained for the second time since 1994. F1 is supposed to be the > pinnacle of motorsport, but the rule restrictions conspired to make > the cars into ungainly l racing machines. Of course I enjoy watching > Michael Schumacher visibly wringing out a qualifying lap on a stiff, > narrow-track, grooved-tire Ferrari. For the most part, however, the > sight of 98-spec cars on the track just looked unnatural. > > In contrast, 1967 marked the second year of the 3.0L era. The > greatest limit in car design was the imagination, while the tracks > were similarly wide-open and dangerous. For the feeling of freedom > alone, I prefer 1967. However, I really wouldn't mind seeing a sim > based on the high-tech, high-downforce cars of 1993! >

What about high-downforce, high-power turbo-cars (say 1981). Back then, there were much less chicanes, competitive racing and Zandvoort! > Martin > Long Live Nigel Mansell!

"John Fryatt" <[email hidden]> skrev i meddelandet news:8nhfam$muh$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Hi Kirk, > > Small point... F1 engines are 3.5 litre. > > Cheers, John > >

Nope they are 3L since �96. -Bj�rn

Han, I'd love to gain some idea of what those turbo cars were like, maybe taking Nelson Piquet's place in a Brabham. Someone's trying to overtake? Just turn up the boost and... 1000hp! Only for a few seconds, mind. :-)) Cheers, John Han Monsees <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8nf26d$gnb$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (35 lines)

> > "Martin Ursua" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:399bedac.28365716@news... > > On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 12:23:56 +0100, "John Fryatt" > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >I like both sims and continue to play them, but aesthetically I think I > like > > >1967 better. > > > > > >What do you think? > > > > The way I look at it... In 1998, the cars had just been > > constrained for the second time since 1994. F1 is supposed to be the > > pinnacle of motorsport, but the rule restrictions conspired to make > > the cars into ungainly l racing machines. Of course I enjoy watching > > Michael Schumacher visibly wringing out a qualifying lap on a stiff, > > narrow-track, grooved-tire Ferrari. For the most part, however, the > > sight of 98-spec cars on the track just looked unnatural. > > > > In contrast, 1967 marked the second year of the 3.0L era. The > > greatest limit in car design was the imagination, while the tracks > > were similarly wide-open and dangerous. For the feeling of freedom > > alone, I prefer 1967. However, I really wouldn't mind seeing a sim > > based on the high-tech, high-downforce cars of 1993! > > > > What about high-downforce, high-power turbo-cars (say 1981). Back then, > there were much less chicanes, competitive racing and Zandvoort! > > > > Martin > > Long Live Nigel Mansell! > >

Stephen, Yes, that's what I was trying to say, albeit a little less eloquently. I suppose I knew this in a theoretical sort of way, as I've followed motor racing for quite a few years now. It's nice to get some kind of practical insight into what it might feel like though, via GPL/GP3. As someone else said, it would be nice now to have another sim featuring the turbocharged ground effect cars. I won't be holding my breath though. :-( Cheers, John Stephen Ferguson <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:399a914b$[email hidden]... > On the other hand, 1998 has its own "aesthetic". GP3 (and the othermodern > sims) hint at the sensation that you are piloting a craft on the razor's > edge. One moment you have control, the next moment you are off. What is > required with the 1998 GP cars, besides lightning reflexes, is the ability > to read what the car is doing up to the point when it steps out. Onceit's > gone, it's really gone (ok, there are quite a few superhumans in this > newsgroup, but I'm just a passenger once a GP3 car really loses the back > end). In the 1967 cars, you feel what the car is doing up until you lose > it, but then continue to work with the car way beyond that point. A lotof

Quoted text (17 lines)

> that comes down to the aero and the smaller slip angles of modern tires. > The other appeal of the modern era is the sheer acceleration out of the > corners, the ridiculous braking levels and the speed carried through > corners. Driving Monaco in GP3 really drives home the point of how quick > these cars are. > > I like both eras, and I like both sims. > > Stephen > > > > John Fryatt <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8ndtkh$ge8$[email hidden]... > > Hi all, > > > > I've had GPL for a while now, and I've just got GP3. Wait! No this

isn't > > another GP3 vs GPL tirade. :-) It's more to do with Grand Prix racingin > > the different eras. > > > > Assuming both sims are fairly realistic, I found it interesting tocompare > > the way the tracks are designed and the way the cars run on them in 1967 > and > > in 1998. > > Seems that in 1967 you could get some lovely long straights and reallyget > > the car howling down them (Ferrari V12 - mmmm!). Also the corneringseems > to > > require a smooth technique and good car control, whereas the 1998 > > tracks/cars seem a lot more 'point and squirt' and I can yank on the > > steering in a way that would have the 1967 car off the track. > > I guess the 98 cars are a lot more powerful, have loads more grip, andcan > > also go much deeper into corners before braking, obviously leading to > quite > > a different feel to the cars. > > Also, I can see why they are there, but it's a shame about the chicanesin

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > all the tracks now. > > > > I like both sims and continue to play them, but aesthetically I think I > like > > 1967 better. > > > > What do you think? > > > > John > > > > > >

You know what I remember about those turbo cars... I remember ESPN used to show the races live early the morning, and I was fan then.(not really one anymore). well back to what I remember...Not sure what year it was, but I remember it rained quite a few races. When those cars turbo's would spool up and the power kicked in, it was a handful for the driver. And it seemed to catch the drivers off guard sometimes. Races in the rain were truly an exciting race to watch. Cars would seem to be fine, then without warning go sideways and launch off the road. -- Kevin Anderson [email hidden] --------------------------------------------------- "John Fryatt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8nfdla$e99$[email hidden]... > Han, > > I'd love to gain some idea of what those turbo cars were like, maybe taking > Nelson Piquet's place in a Brabham. Someone's trying to overtake? Just turn > up the boost and... 1000hp! Only for a few seconds, mind. :-)) > > Cheers, John > > > Han Monsees <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8nf26d$gnb$[email hidden]... > > > > "Martin Ursua" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:399bedac.28365716@news... > > > On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 12:23:56 +0100, "John Fryatt" > > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > > >I like both sims and continue to play them, but aesthetically I think I > > like > > > >1967 better. > > > > > > > >What do you think? > > > > > > The way I look at it... In 1998, the cars had just been > > > constrained for the second time since 1994. F1 is supposed to be the > > > pinnacle of motorsport, but the rule restrictions conspired to make > > > the cars into ungainly l racing machines. Of course I enjoy watching > > > Michael Schumacher visibly wringing out a qualifying lap on a stiff, > > > narrow-track, grooved-tire Ferrari. For the most part, however, the > > > sight of 98-spec cars on the track just looked unnatural. > > > > > > In contrast, 1967 marked the second year of the 3.0L era. The > > > greatest limit in car design was the imagination, while the tracks > > > were similarly wide-open and dangerous. For the feeling of freedom > > > alone, I prefer 1967. However, I really wouldn't mind seeing a sim > > > based on the high-tech, high-downforce cars of 1993! > > > > > > > What about high-downforce, high-power turbo-cars (say 1981). Back then, > > there were much less chicanes, competitive racing and Zandvoort! > > > > > > > Martin > > > Long Live Nigel Mansell! > > > > > >

I agree too...For both looks and sound (all of the new ones sound the same to me now, it's basically a bunch of 3 liter 16,000 RPM V10s. Back in '67, you had everything from 8000 RPM pushrod V8s to 12,000 RPM Honda V12s to BRM H16s...) I will take a 1967 GP car any day over a 1998, 1999, 2000, etc car. No sponsors, no wings. Just fairly simple color schemes on beautifully smooth cars. Not rolling insanely contoured billboards. -- Kirk Lane [email hidden] Andre Warringa <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 12:23:56 +0100, "John Fryatt" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Hi all, > <snip> > > > >I like both sims and continue to play them, but aesthetically I think I like > >1967 better. > > > >What do you think? > > I agree, and I'm quite sure most of the GPL addicts here agree... > > Andre > > >John > > >

Hi Kirk, Small point... F1 engines are 3.5 litre. Cheers, John Kirk Lane <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8nfo59$9d5$[email hidden]... > I agree too...For both looks and sound (all of the new ones sound the same > to me now, it's basically a bunch of 3 liter 16,000 RPM V10s. Back in'67, > you had everything from 8000 RPM pushrod V8s to 12,000 RPM Honda V12s toBRM > H16s...) I will take a 1967 GP car any day over a 1998, 1999, 2000, etccar.

Quoted text (28 lines)

> No sponsors, no wings. Just fairly simple color schemes on beautifully > smooth cars. Not rolling insanely contoured billboards. > -- > Kirk Lane > [email hidden] > Andre Warringa <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 12:23:56 +0100, "John Fryatt" > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >Hi all, > > <snip> > > > > > >I like both sims and continue to play them, but aesthetically I think I > like > > >1967 better. > > > > > >What do you think? > > > > I agree, and I'm quite sure most of the GPL addicts here agree... > > > > Andre > > > > >John > > > > > > >

"John Fryatt" <[email hidden]> writes: > Hi Kirk, > > Small point... F1 engines are 3.5 litre. Uh, no.

Quoted text (42 lines)

> Cheers, John > > > Kirk Lane <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8nfo59$9d5$[email hidden]... > > I agree too...For both looks and sound (all of the new ones sound the same > > to me now, it's basically a bunch of 3 liter 16,000 RPM V10s. Back in > '67, > > you had everything from 8000 RPM pushrod V8s to 12,000 RPM Honda V12s to > BRM > > H16s...) I will take a 1967 GP car any day over a 1998, 1999, 2000, etc > car. > > No sponsors, no wings. Just fairly simple color schemes on beautifully > > smooth cars. Not rolling insanely contoured billboards. > > -- > > Kirk Lane > > [email hidden] > > Andre Warringa <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 12:23:56 +0100, "John Fryatt" > > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > > >Hi all, > > > <snip> > > > > > > > >I like both sims and continue to play them, but aesthetically I think I > > like > > > >1967 better. > > > > > > > >What do you think? > > > > > > I agree, and I'm quite sure most of the GPL addicts here agree... > > > > > > Andre > > > > > > >John > > > > > > > > > > > > >

-- Olav K. Malmin remove spam when replying

"Bj�rn Nyhl�n" <bjorn.nylen.924@*NOSPAM*student.lth.se> wrote in message news:8nhfqb$8ea$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > "John Fryatt" <[email hidden]> skrev i meddelandet > news:8nhfam$muh$[email hidden]... > > Hi Kirk, > > > > Small point... F1 engines are 3.5 litre. > > > > Cheers, John > > > > > > Nope they are 3L since �96.

Since 1995. One of the t hings they changed quite in a rush after the Ratzenberger and Senna accidents. > > -Bj�rn > >

"Han Monsees" <[email hidden]> skrev i meddelandet news:8nhgst$t5u$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> > "Bj�rn Nyhl�n" <bjorn.nylen.924@*NOSPAM*student.lth.se> wrote in message > news:8nhfqb$8ea$[email hidden]... > > > > "John Fryatt" <[email hidden]> skrev i meddelandet > > news:8nhfam$muh$[email hidden]... > > > Hi Kirk, > > > > > > Small point... F1 engines are 3.5 litre. > > > > > > Cheers, John > > > > > > > > > > Nope they are 3L since �96. > > Since 1995. One of the t hings they changed quite in a rush after the > Ratzenberger and Senna accidents. >

Oops! Always make sure you know your stuff before trying to show off. :o)

On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 02:05:00 GMT, "Kevin Anderson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>You know what I remember about those turbo cars... I remember ESPN used to >show the races live early the morning, and I was fan then.(not really one >anymore). well back to what I remember...Not sure what year it was, but I >remember it rained quite a few races. When those cars turbo's would spool up >and the power kicked in, it was a handful for the driver. And it seemed to >catch the drivers off guard sometimes. Races in the rain were truly an >exciting race to watch. Cars would seem to be fine, then without warning go >sideways and launch off the road. >

Wasn't that during the ground effect era? Those cars looked horrible, with the driver right near the front of the car. Nicki Lauda says in one of his books that they were horrible to drive, too. All you could do was pick a speed and angle for your corner, then stick to it. No opportunity for adjusting (ie driving) the car. cheers simon