GPL.. good, but it doesn't model everything...

Such as your head being ripped off as your car slips under the armco. Oh well, you can't have everything. Actually, I've spent about an hour and fifteen with the game so far... 1) Damn! I thought *modern* formula 1 was hard. 2) Mirror fix: thanks all. What a difference (obviously). These mirrors are works of art. 3) Is there ice on the track? 4) Will my wife enjoy tottering about Nurburgring in what I've described as "the family sedan"? I think so. 5) Speed, speed, turn, slide, recover, opposite spin, embankment, fence, flippy-floppy-crunch. 6) Three wheels is better than two. 7) Challenging. Andrew

On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 13:09:55 GMT, Andrew Turner <[email hidden]> wrote: > >5) Speed, speed, turn, slide, recover, opposite spin, embankment, fence, >flippy-floppy-crunch. A bit of couter-intuitive advice to help the "recover" part above: try steering all the way *in the direction of the spin* (instead of counter-steering) when you lose the back-end. This will cause your front-end to slide and the uncontrollable oversteer will become a (barely controlled) four-wheel drift. Richard. -- Richard Bellavance Enter-Net Inc. Phone: (450) 652-7189 #16 Systems Administrator/ (514) 990-1683 #16 Analyst-Programmer Fax: (450) 652-6973

Funny post, Andrew. You're in for a good time. I don't care about the "head" modeling. But I wish they modeled post-race briefings with groupies! Regards, Kurt Andrew Turner wrote in message <[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (26 lines)

>Such as your head being ripped off as your car slips under the armco. > >Oh well, you can't have everything. > >Actually, I've spent about an hour and fifteen with the game so far... > >1) Damn! I thought *modern* formula 1 was hard. > >2) Mirror fix: thanks all. What a difference (obviously). These mirrors >are works of art. > >3) Is there ice on the track? > >4) Will my wife enjoy tottering about Nurburgring in what I've described >as "the family sedan"? >I think so. > >5) Speed, speed, turn, slide, recover, opposite spin, embankment, fence, >flippy-floppy-crunch. > >6) Three wheels is better than two. > >7) Challenging. > >Andrew >

Hi Richard! Actually, I've gotten quite good at this in other sims and in "real life".. there is a simulated dirt track we went to, and the floor was smooth concrete which had some sort of powder on it... the cars were mini "sprint" cars! they only went about 15-20 miles per hour. You HAD to drift them to get them around the corners... steer into the turn, break off the back end grip, then opposite steering to slide them around.. Man! They were fun... you had to employ the technique you describe here. My friend couldn't quite get the hang of it and kept banging straight on into the wall... GPL is a bit harder that the other sims, so far, but it's great and I look forward to making a fool of myself online. Regards, Andrew Richard Bellavance wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

> On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 13:09:55 GMT, Andrew Turner <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > >5) Speed, speed, turn, slide, recover, opposite spin, embankment, fence, > >flippy-floppy-crunch. > > A bit of couter-intuitive advice to help the "recover" part above: > try steering all the way *in the direction of the spin* (instead of > counter-steering) when you lose the back-end. This will cause your > front-end to slide and the uncontrollable oversteer will become a > (barely controlled) four-wheel drift. > > Richard. > -- > Richard Bellavance Enter-Net Inc. > Phone: (450) 652-7189 #16 > Systems Administrator/ (514) 990-1683 #16 > Analyst-Programmer Fax: (450) 652-6973

On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 13:56:57 GMT, Andrew Turner <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>Hi Richard! > >Actually, I've gotten quite good at this in other sims and in "real life".. >there is a simulated dirt track we went to, and the floor was smooth concrete >which had some sort of powder on it... the cars were mini "sprint" cars! they >only went about 15-20 miles per hour. You HAD to drift them to get them around >the corners... steer into the turn, break off the back end grip, then opposite >steering

But isn't Richard saying the opposite? If I understand him right he says to steer in the direction of the slide instead of opposite lock... I have to try out that technique tonight! Andre

Quoted text (9 lines)

>to slide them around.. Man! They were fun... you had to employ the >technique you describe here. My friend couldn't quite get the hang of it and >kept banging straight on into the wall... > >GPL is a bit harder that the other sims, so far, but it's great and I look >forward to making a fool of myself online. > >Regards, >Andrew

You just have to find the right IRC chat room. :) Regards, Gordon "Kurt Steinbock" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Ji7%4.5682$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (39 lines)

> Funny post, Andrew. You're in for a good time. > > I don't care about the "head" modeling. But I wish they modeled post-race > briefings with groupies! > > Regards, > > Kurt > > > Andrew Turner wrote in message <[email hidden]>... > >Such as your head being ripped off as your car slips under the armco. > > > >Oh well, you can't have everything. > > > >Actually, I've spent about an hour and fifteen with the game so far... > > > >1) Damn! I thought *modern* formula 1 was hard. > > > >2) Mirror fix: thanks all. What a difference (obviously). These mirrors > >are works of art. > > > >3) Is there ice on the track? > > > >4) Will my wife enjoy tottering about Nurburgring in what I've described > >as "the family sedan"? > >I think so. > > > >5) Speed, speed, turn, slide, recover, opposite spin, embankment, fence, > >flippy-floppy-crunch. > > > >6) Three wheels is better than two. > > > >7) Challenging. > > > >Andrew > > > >

On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 13:58:14 GMT, Andre Warringa <[email hidden]> wrote: > >But isn't Richard saying the opposite? If I understand him right he >says to steer in the direction of the slide instead of opposite >lock... I have to try out that technique tonight! Yes Andre, that's exactly what I'm saying. I'm not claiming it'll make anyone faster, but it allows one to "catch" an otherwise certain spin. Richard. -- Richard Bellavance Enter-Net Inc. Phone: (450) 652-7189 #16 Systems Administrator/ (514) 990-1683 #16 Analyst-Programmer Fax: (450) 652-6973

Andre, I also thought it was a bit strange at first actually turning into the corner to catch a slide, but it does actually work. I think the thing is you have to put the power down at the same time. The power makes the car want to go straight which cancels out the inertia of the slide and prevents the car spinning. It's kinda strange I know. I use this technique especially through the last Lesmo. Chris -- Citylab Durban www.citylab.com Tel:(+27 31) 309 2944 Faxl:(+27 31) 309 2933 Andre Warringa <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... Richard, I don't get it. Could you send me a replay in which you show me how to do this? When I turn the wheel in the direction of the slide, I simply turn around. Thanks, Andre On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 16:50:50 GMT, [email hidden] (Richard Bellavance) wrote: >On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 13:58:14 GMT, Andre Warringa <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >>But isn't Richard saying the opposite? If I understand him right he >>says to steer in the direction of the slide instead of opposite >>lock... I have to try out that technique tonight! > >Yes Andre, that's exactly what I'm saying. > >I'm not claiming it'll make anyone faster, but it allows one to >"catch" an otherwise certain spin. > >Richard.

Quoted text (10 lines)

>Andre, I also thought it was a bit strange at first actually turning into >the corner to catch a slide, but it does actually work. I think the thing >is you have to put the power down at the same time. The power makes the car >want to go straight which cancels out the inertia of the slide and prevents >the car spinning. It's kinda strange I know. > >I use this technique especially through the last Lesmo. > >Chris >

**Warning---Oversimplification, but basically true--** Can I jump in here? My 2 bits: When you've entered and stabalized in a turn, the front wheels are pointing one direction and moving a slightly different direction (same for the rears, but forget about that for now). The difference between the directions is the slip angle as you probably already know. The tire makes the most cornering force at one particular slip angle (basically true for many racing tires, and an oversimplification, yada yada yada, etc.). This means if you straighten out the wheel a little, there's less force pushing sideways at the front and magically, you straighten out a little and follow a bigger curve. But this also means that if you turn the wheel MORE than optimum, you generate less sideforce (generally) and you follow a bigger curve too! Crank the wheel on your family car all the way to one side while cruising at 50mph through your neighborhood grocer's parking lot (ok, don't, bad idea). It won't turn as tightly as it would if you used "just the right amount" of steering input. As for the power wanting to make the car straighten out, this is from weight transfer off the front end. There's less force pushing down on the front tires, so there's less force sideways too. You straighten out a little. This is true when you're oversteering as well. * Remember, don't turn the wheel far enough and you don't turn as tightly. Turn the wheel too far, and you don't turn as tightly either. You need "just the right amount". Make sense? Todd Wasson :-) (Pardon my intrusion!)

Richard, I don't get it. Could you send me a replay in which you show me how to do this? When I turn the wheel in the direction of the slide, I simply turn around. Thanks, Andre On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 16:50:50 GMT, [email hidden] (Richard Bellavance) wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

>On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 13:58:14 GMT, Andre Warringa <[email hidden]> wrote: >> >>But isn't Richard saying the opposite? If I understand him right he >>says to steer in the direction of the slide instead of opposite >>lock... I have to try out that technique tonight! > >Yes Andre, that's exactly what I'm saying. > >I'm not claiming it'll make anyone faster, but it allows one to >"catch" an otherwise certain spin. > >Richard.

Andre Warringa wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > Richard, I don't get it. Could you send me a replay in which you show > me how to do this? When I turn the wheel in the direction of the > slide, I simply turn around. > > Thanks, > Andre >

No, really, it works. I've shown with some physics arguments on this newsgroup why it should work a while ago (basically it can be shown that the torque of the outside front wheel will produce a smaller torque at high yaw angles when it is turned into the turn further, thus stabilising the spin). I'll check deja to respost it again. Just try it out, though, the next time you will enter what is otherwise an irrecoverable spin. Opposite lock works to a certain point, once that becomes innefective the turning of the wheel into the turn helps. It's really amazing and counterintuitive, but can save you lots of time in races. -Gregor

Gregor Veble wrote:

Quoted text (24 lines)

> > Andre Warringa wrote: > > > > Richard, I don't get it. Could you send me a replay in which you show > > me how to do this? When I turn the wheel in the direction of the > > slide, I simply turn around. > > > > Thanks, > > Andre > > > > No, really, it works. I've shown with some physics arguments on this > newsgroup why it should work a while ago (basically it can be shown that > the torque of the outside front wheel will produce a smaller torque at > high yaw angles when it is turned into the turn further, thus > stabilising the spin). I'll check deja to respost it again. > > Just try it out, though, the next time you will enter what is otherwise > an irrecoverable spin. Opposite lock works to a certain point, once that > becomes innefective the turning of the wheel into the turn helps. It's > really amazing and counterintuitive, but can save you lots of time in > races. > > -Gregor

Reposting from deja.com why opposite lock doesn't work at high car yaw angles: The second effect to consider is more complicated and may actually contribute more. Let us assume that most of the cornering force comes from the outside wheels (this is true for the cars in GPL which have a relatively high ceter of gravity). In order to stop a spin we need to produce a torque on the car that opposes the direction of the spin. Let us also assume that the lateral force on the tyre does not depend too much upon its orientation, which is also true at high slip (yaw) angles for the tyres of the time. These are all plausible simplifications and may be argued, but it is easiest to show the idea with them. Anyone who has ever worked in science will know this kind of approach. Let us assume a right hand turn. With no lock the situation looking from above on the front wheels looks like this: Picture 1: _ _ | | F | | | |----> | | |_| |_| ^ \ / \ \ / \ \ / \ \ / \ velocity vector O c.g. Let us consider this a balanced situation, so that the torques produced by all wheels (including rears) are 0 and the car maintains a slip (towards the up-left direction) if no steering corrections are applied. The force on the outside wheel is for the sake of simplicity considered negligible. Consider now the case when the driver tries to recover by dialing some opposite lock: Picture 2 (okay, so the lines are not perpendicular, imagine them to be) : ^ F / /\ / \ \/ \ \ \/ \ \ \ O c.g. As the force becomes closer to perpendicular to the vector between the center of gravity (c.g.) while the magnitude of the force stays roughly the same, the torque actually increases so the net torque of all tyres is not 0 anymore but actually contributes to the direction of the spin. Only if the magnitude of the force diminishes enough to cancel this effect (the tyre gets back into the normal slip angle regime) does the opposite lock help, otherwise it can actually cause harm and you would be better of dialing in some further lock INTO the spin. -Gregor

Hi Gregor, I thought Richard meant to turn the wheels in the direction your rear wheels are spinning, so that if your rear wheels lose grip and spin to the right (counter-clockwise) you turn your front wheels "in the same direction", i.e. to the right, or, clockwise. I guess this isn't what he meant, but this is what we did in the tiny sprint cars! Andrew Gregor Veble wrote:

Quoted text (94 lines)

> Gregor Veble wrote: > > > > Andre Warringa wrote: > > > > > > Richard, I don't get it. Could you send me a replay in which you show > > > me how to do this? When I turn the wheel in the direction of the > > > slide, I simply turn around. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Andre > > > > > > > No, really, it works. I've shown with some physics arguments on this > > newsgroup why it should work a while ago (basically it can be shown that > > the torque of the outside front wheel will produce a smaller torque at > > high yaw angles when it is turned into the turn further, thus > > stabilising the spin). I'll check deja to respost it again. > > > > Just try it out, though, the next time you will enter what is otherwise > > an irrecoverable spin. Opposite lock works to a certain point, once that > > becomes innefective the turning of the wheel into the turn helps. It's > > really amazing and counterintuitive, but can save you lots of time in > > races. > > > > -Gregor > > Reposting from deja.com why opposite lock doesn't work at high car yaw > angles: > > The second effect to consider is more complicated and may actually > contribute more. Let us assume that most of the cornering force comes > from the outside wheels (this is > true for the cars in GPL which have a relatively high ceter of > gravity). In order to stop a spin we need to produce a torque on the car > that opposes the direction of the > spin. Let us also assume that the lateral force on the tyre does not > depend too much upon its orientation, which is also true at high slip > (yaw) angles for the tyres of the > time. These are all plausible simplifications and may be argued, but it > is easiest to show the idea with them. Anyone who has ever worked in > science will know this kind of > approach. > > Let us assume a right hand turn. With no lock the situation looking > from above on the front wheels looks like this: > > Picture 1: > _ _ > | | F | | > | |----> | | > |_| |_| ^ > \ / \ > \ / \ > \ / \ > \ / \ velocity vector > O c.g. > > > Let us consider this a balanced situation, so that the torques produced > by all wheels (including rears) are 0 and the car maintains a slip > (towards the up-left direction) if no > steering corrections are applied. The force on the outside wheel is for > the sake of simplicity considered negligible. Consider now the case when > the driver tries to recover by > dialing some opposite lock: > > Picture 2 (okay, so the lines are not perpendicular, imagine them to > be) > : > > ^ > F / > /\ / > \ \/ > \ \ > \/ > \ > \ > \ > O c.g. > > > As the force becomes closer to perpendicular to the vector between the > center of gravity (c.g.) while the magnitude of the force stays roughly > the same, the torque actually > increases so the net torque of all tyres is not 0 anymore but actually > contributes to the direction of the spin. Only if the magnitude of the > force diminishes enough to cancel > this effect (the tyre gets back into the normal slip angle regime) does > the opposite lock help, otherwise it can actually cause harm and you > would be better of dialing in some > further lock INTO the spin. > > -Gregor

Andrew Turner wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > Hi Gregor, > > I thought Richard meant to turn the wheels in the direction your rear wheels > are spinning, so that if your rear wheels lose grip and spin to the right > (counter-clockwise) you turn your front wheels "in the same direction", i.e. > to the right, or, clockwise. > > I guess this isn't what he meant, but this is what we did in the tiny sprint > cars! > > Andrew >

Rereading his post I still believe he meant what I wrote. Turning into a spin or a turn means doing what would normally cause to enhance the spin or tighten the turn; just that it works the opposite way in this case. But that's not really the point, the point is that when a spin is past normal recovery, if you put even more steering lock (not opposite, but into the turn), the car will slovly recover contrary to expectations. Parabolica is a very good place to test this. This mostly applies to spins that occur during braking, though, but can also be helpful when you overcook it on acceleration sometimes. Try it and be amazed, just as I was when I first tried it out. It's elementary physics, and it works. -Gregor

On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 00:01:54 GMT, Andre Warringa <[email hidden]> wrote: >Richard, I don't get it. Could you send me a replay in which you show >me how to do this? When I turn the wheel in the direction of the >slide, I simply turn around. I'm at work now (sshhh! :-) I'll e-mail you one tonight. Richard. -- Richard Bellavance Enter-Net Inc. Phone: (450) 652-7189 #16 Systems Administrator/ (514) 990-1683 #16 Analyst-Programmer Fax: (450) 652-6973

On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 13:51:19 +0200, Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote: >Andrew Turner wrote: > >Rereading his post I still believe he meant what I wrote. Turning into a >spin or a turn means doing what would normally cause to enhance the spin >or tighten the turn; just that it works the opposite way in this case. Yes, I mean exactly what you explainer, Andrew. Thanks for putting physics behind it :-) Richard. -- Richard Bellavance Enter-Net Inc. Phone: (450) 652-7189 #16 Systems Administrator/ (514) 990-1683 #16 Analyst-Programmer Fax: (450) 652-6973

Richard Bellavance wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 13:51:19 +0200, Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote: > >Andrew Turner wrote: > > > >Rereading his post I still believe he meant what I wrote. Turning into a > >spin or a turn means doing what would normally cause to enhance the spin > >or tighten the turn; just that it works the opposite way in this case. > > Yes, I mean exactly what you explainer, Andrew. Thanks for putting > physics behind it :-) > > Richard. > -- > Richard Bellavance Enter-Net Inc. > Phone: (450) 652-7189 #16 > Systems Administrator/ (514) 990-1683 #16 > Analyst-Programmer Fax: (450) 652-6973

Ahem, you probably mean Gregor :). -Gregor

On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 14:41:48 +0200, Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote: > >Ahem, you probably mean Gregor :). D'oh ! Yes I do... Blame it on lack-of-morning-coffee. Sorry !! Richard. -- Richard Bellavance Enter-Net Inc. Phone: (450) 652-7189 #16 Systems Administrator/ (514) 990-1683 #16 Analyst-Programmer Fax: (450) 652-6973

but does this work on a real car? On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 13:51:19 +0200, Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (28 lines)

>Andrew Turner wrote: >> >> Hi Gregor, >> >> I thought Richard meant to turn the wheels in the direction your rear wheels >> are spinning, so that if your rear wheels lose grip and spin to the right >> (counter-clockwise) you turn your front wheels "in the same direction", i.e. >> to the right, or, clockwise. >> >> I guess this isn't what he meant, but this is what we did in the tiny sprint >> cars! >> >> Andrew >> > >Rereading his post I still believe he meant what I wrote. Turning into a >spin or a turn means doing what would normally cause to enhance the spin >or tighten the turn; just that it works the opposite way in this case. > >But that's not really the point, the point is that when a spin is past >normal recovery, if you put even more steering lock (not opposite, but >into the turn), the car will slovly recover contrary to expectations. >Parabolica is a very good place to test this. This mostly applies to >spins that occur during braking, though, but can also be helpful when >you overcook it on acceleration sometimes. Try it and be amazed, just as >I was when I first tried it out. It's elementary physics, and it works. > >-Gregor

To email me remove the "u"s

On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 13:51:19 +0200, Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>But that's not really the point, the point is that when a spin is past >normal recovery, if you put even more steering lock (not opposite, but >into the turn), the car will slovly recover contrary to expectations. >Parabolica is a very good place to test this. This mostly applies to >spins that occur during braking, though, but can also be helpful when >you overcook it on acceleration sometimes. Try it and be amazed, just as >I was when I first tried it out. It's elementary physics, and it works.

Interestingly, that's exactly where I tried it (out of necessity... <g>). I didn't catch it soon enough, but it did arrest yaw so that I came to a stop at less than 90 degrees from the desired direction of travel. I shall have to train myself to respond as such in "oh shit!" situations. Even if I don't manage a full recovery with it, perhaps it will minimize lost time when in a race and preserve a position or two. Regards, Brett C. Cammack That's Racing! Motorsports Pompano Beach, FL

On 7 Jun 2000, JTW62074 wrote: > **Warning---Oversimplification, but basically true--** <snip> > Crank the wheel on your family car all the way to one side while cruising at > 50mph through your neighborhood grocer's parking lot (ok, don't, bad idea). It > won't turn as tightly as it would if you used "just the right amount" of > steering input. <snip> > Todd Wasson :-) Haven't tried this stunt in a long time. With a c.1970 Chevy station wagon it was very impressive. Note that this car had: rear drive, skinny high pressure tires, weight distribution probably 55% front (a guess, but it had a long rear overhang), and lots of steering lock angle, maybe 45 degrees, (since it had a long wheelbase). Much more steering lock angle than is now typical with front drive cars, where the CV joints limit the angularity. We did it on a skid pad (fancy name for a flat parking lot, closed to other traffic) at about 60 mph. That big wagon rolled (leaned) a bit but went almost straight. It was important to get the steering in quickly... Smoked the front tires (but they belonged to someone else -- the best kind!) I have no idea if you could actually pull this off with a real GP car from the mid-1960's or not -- those little cars had pretty low rotational inertia (aka, "polar moment of inertia", about the vertical axis), so they turn pretty quickly...and I'll bet the steering wheel torque is a _lot_ higher than with a game steering wheel. -- Doug Douglas Milliken Milliken Research Associates Inc.

Quoted text (25 lines)

>Haven't tried this stunt in a long time. With a c.1970 Chevy station wagon >it was very impressive. Note that this car had: rear drive, skinny high >pressure tires, weight distribution probably 55% front (a guess, but it had >a long rear overhang), and lots of steering lock angle, maybe 45 degrees, >(since it had a long wheelbase). Much more steering lock angle than is now >typical with front drive cars, where the CV joints limit the angularity. > >We did it on a skid pad (fancy name for a flat parking lot, closed to other >traffic) at about 60 mph. That big wagon rolled (leaned) a bit but went >almost straight. It was important to get the steering in quickly... >Smoked the front tires (but they belonged to someone else -- the best >kind!) > > >I have no idea if you could actually pull this off with a real GP car from >the mid-1960's or not -- those little cars had pretty low rotational >inertia (aka, "polar moment of inertia", about the vertical axis), so they >turn pretty quickly...and I'll bet the steering wheel torque is a _lot_ >higher than with a game steering wheel. > >-- Doug > Douglas Milliken > Milliken Research Associates Inc. > >

That had to be a lot of fun! By the way Mr. Milliken, I received your book, "Race Car Vehicle Dynamics" and give it a two big thumbs up!! Great work, sir! Todd Wasson Performance Simulations

"Brett C. Cammack" wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > Interestingly, that's exactly where I tried it (out of necessity... > <g>). I didn't catch it soon enough, but it did arrest yaw so that I > came to a stop at less than 90 degrees from the desired direction of > travel. I shall have to train myself to respond as such in "oh shit!" > situations. Even if I don't manage a full recovery with it, perhaps > it will minimize lost time when in a race and preserve a position or > two. > > Regards, > Brett C. Cammack > That's Racing! Motorsports > Pompano Beach, FL

Exactly, it is most useful in races. What I've learned to do is to first apply opposite lock once I start spinning, if this works it's OK, but if there is no effect, I quickly turn the wheel the other way and it is usually enough. Think of it as an all-else fails situation, and it quickly becomes second nature. It helped a lot in online races so far, especially Zandvoort in the two slowest corners. -Gregor