I bet you trailbrake too much, and lose time mid-corner like I used to do.
I think the fast guys gently trailbrake for just the tiniest split-second
when they enter a corner, and try to get their braking done with as soon as
possible. You need a more rearward brake balance to use that technique.
Too bad it makes the car so twitchy.
I think of Monza as a "slow" circuit, by the way. 1 fast corner vs 3 slow
corners. Ascari and that other flat-out corner don't count, since you're
not really on the limit there.
-A
Jon Andersen <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:U9NJ4.2948$[email hidden]...
importantly:
> Why do they choose to drive with such an undriveable brake balance? I use56
> pst in the Lotus, and 57 pst in the Ferrari. According to GPL Dump, Ibrake
> just as late as these guys, at least at Monza, which is the only track I
> know really well. Thus shortening braking distance cannot be the reasonfor
> choosing 53 pst brake balance, because you can brake just as late with a56
> pst brake balance.
>
> Also: I've noticed that some of the fast guys uses very soft bump and
> rebound settings at Monza. That is a puzzle to me. How can anyone be faston
> a fast track like Monza, when using a soft setup, which normally would be
> preferrable at slower tracks? Is this a scam? Is this just a way for the
> pro's to keep the rest of us in a safe distance, by fooling the rest of us
> to use their setups? Did they really drive that fast with those setups? Or
> did ther do their fantastic laps with stiffer setups, but are trying toget
M
Yo!
I've been fooling around with GPL for 4 months now. I never cared much for
open wheeled racing before, but after reading lots of posts at the RAS, I
decided to give the game a try.
Silly move. It killed my social life.
Well. Back to the point of this post. Setups.
I am overwhelmingly impressed with the laps of guys like L. Grandis, G.
Huttu and the other aliens at Schubi's site. The times they are achieving
are truly impressive. But that they can do such laps *in spite* of the
setups they are using, is simply unbelievable.
How can these people drive with 53 pst brake balance? And more importantly:
Why do they choose to drive with such an undriveable brake balance? I use 56
pst in the Lotus, and 57 pst in the Ferrari. According to GPL Dump, I brake
just as late as these guys, at least at Monza, which is the only track I
know really well. Thus shortening braking distance cannot be the reason for
choosing 53 pst brake balance, because you can brake just as late with a 56
pst brake balance.
Also: I've noticed that some of the fast guys uses very soft bump and
rebound settings at Monza. That is a puzzle to me. How can anyone be fast on
a fast track like Monza, when using a soft setup, which normally would be
preferrable at slower tracks? Is this a scam? Is this just a way for the
pro's to keep the rest of us in a safe distance, by fooling the rest of us
to use their setups? Did they really drive that fast with those setups? Or
did ther do their fantastic laps with stiffer setups, but are trying to get
the rest of us to drive with undriveably soft setups? Sometimes I find the
latter easy to believe.
Some of you will probably say that trailbraking is the reason why these
aliens drive so fast with their 53 pst brake balance. Well, it's not. I
trailbrake myself. Trailbraking is easier, and more necessary, with a more
front biased brake balance.
I really do not understand why so many choose to drive with a 53 pst brake
balance. Neither do I understand why the fast guys chooses a soft setup at M
onza. My setup is *very* different from the pro's setups. Still, I drive
reasonably well, at least at Monza.
Someone, please enlighten me on this subject.
Jon Andersen
In article <U9NJ4.2948$[email hidden]>, Jon Andersen <jo-
[email hidden]> writes
<snip>
Believe me, those setups do work. In the Lotus I've used both
L.Grandis, which allowed me to get under 1:28 for the first time within
10 minutes of first using it, and currently G. Huttu's setup which has
got me down to 1:27.6 and haven't found them any more difficult to drive
with than with my own very mediocre setups. Like someone else said in
this thread, they really are ideal setups for getting the back end
drifting out whilst still on the power, especially through the 2 Lesmos.
As far as setting the brake bias to 53, I found that, through natural
progression with my own setups, that mine at most tracks are pretty much
53 or less. The idea being that you don't want the fronts locking up
when you slam the brakes - and any higher and the fronts seem to lock
too easily - whilst at the same time avoiding having too much weight on
the rear end which could easily cause a spin.
I find that if the fronts are locking too easily under my normal hard
braking technique then I can gradually lower the f/r brake bias
percentage until the fronts do what I would normally expect them to
under these conditions. Once the fronts are behaving themselves I'm
condfident that the f/b bias is spot on. If I try to go beyond this
point then the car will start trying to swap ends.
<snip>
--
Peter Ives - (AKA Ivington)
No person's opinions can be said to be
more correct than another's, because each is
the sole judge of his or her own experience.
Quoted text (21 lines)
>How can these people drive with 53 pst brake balance? And more >importantly: >Why do they choose to drive with such an undriveable brake balance? I use >56 >pst in the Lotus, and 57 pst in the Ferrari. According to GPL Dump, I brake >just as late as these guys, at least at Monza, which is the only track I >know really well. Thus shortening braking distance cannot be the reason for >choosing 53 pst brake balance, because you can brake just as late with a 56 >pst brake balance. > >Also: I've noticed that some of the fast guys uses very soft bump and >rebound settings at Monza. That is a puzzle to me. How can anyone be fast >on >a fast track like Monza, when using a soft setup, which normally would be >preferrable at slower tracks? Is this a scam? Is this just a way for the >pro's to keep the rest of us in a safe distance, by fooling the rest of us >to use their setups? Did they really drive that fast with those setups? Or >did ther do their fantastic laps with stiffer setups, but are trying to get >the rest of us to drive with undriveably soft setups? Sometimes I find the >latter easy to believe. >
Peter Ives <[email hidden]> wrote in message
<snip>
Thanks for your reply. What you said about slamming the brakes made me
understand how to drive with those setups. I just tried Huttu's most recent
setup at Monza. It worked when I did not trailbrake. I had to slam the
brakes, release, then turn in. Normally, I brake hard, then release the
brake slowly while turning in, thus keeping pressure on the outside front
wheel while not blocking the inside front tire. That way I do not need those
hefty toe-ins, which seems to make the car very unstable during braking.
You are right about how these guy's settings enables the car to get around
Lezmo 2. The car practically drives itself. But, sadly enough, I prefer to
steer the car myself :-)
I still think their setups are too much too handle for newbies. Boy, am I
glad for starting out with Allison Hine's Ferrari setups, and for reading
about trailbraking at Nunnini's site. My setups are based on her slightly
front biased brake balance, with very little toe-in, especially at the rear.
This, combined with trailbraking, has enabled me to do 1.27.29 at Monza with
the Lotus, and 1.28.00 with the Ferrari, using rather stiff setups with 56
and 57 pst brake balance.
Thanks for your reply. I really appreciated it. I still don't understand why
the fast guys prefer soft setups, though. I guess I'll have to find out by
myself, by learning to drive with their setups, then stiffening those up to
see how that affects handling.
Happy GPL-ing.
Jon Andersen
Quoted text (7 lines)
> As far as setting the brake bias to 53, I found that, through natural > progression with my own setups, that mine at most tracks are pretty much > 53 or less. The idea being that you don't want the fronts locking up > when you slam the brakes - and any higher and the fronts seem to lock > too easily - whilst at the same time avoiding having too much weight on > the rear end which could easily cause a spin. >On Mon, 17 Apr 2000 23:10:35 +0200, "Jon Andersen" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
Interesting. :) I can and *do* trailbrake with my setups. Let's take
the approach to the 1st Lesmo as an example. I start braking right on
the limit and then I begin to ease off the brakes slightly while
beginning to turn in pretty early. My setup allows the car to turn
into the corner well. To prevent the backend from getting too far I
control the car with a little bit of throttle while braking and
turning in.
>Thanks for your reply. I really appreciated it. I still don't understand why
>the fast guys prefer soft setups, though. I guess I'll have to find out by
>myself, by learning to drive with their setups, then stiffening those up to
>see how that affects handling.
I guess it's just a matter of preference and I don't think my setups
are really that soft. I use 80 lb/in wheel rate in front and 95 lb/in
in rear in my Monza Lotus setup. The ARB's are at 140 lb/in in my new
setups with the 45/60 diff because I feel that gives more grip.
Some of my setups are softer than this. It's just the way I like it
after some testing. :)
It would be nice to know what settings they really used in real-life
because I've heard some different stories about that.
-- Greger
Quoted text (16 lines)
>Peter Ives <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >> As far as setting the brake bias to 53, I found that, through natural >> progression with my own setups, that mine at most tracks are pretty much >> 53 or less. The idea being that you don't want the fronts locking up >> when you slam the brakes - and any higher and the fronts seem to lock >> too easily - whilst at the same time avoiding having too much weight on >> the rear end which could easily cause a spin. > >Thanks for your reply. What you said about slamming the brakes made me >understand how to drive with those setups. I just tried Huttu's most recent >setup at Monza. It worked when I did not trailbrake. I had to slam the >brakes, release, then turn in. Normally, I brake hard, then release the >brake slowly while turning in, thus keeping pressure on the outside front >wheel while not blocking the inside front tire. That way I do not need those >hefty toe-ins, which seems to make the car very unstable during braking.[email hidden] (Greger Huttu) wrote:
It's easy for you with your 4 feet.... <g>
Remco
Quoted text (7 lines)
>Interesting. :) I can and *do* trailbrake with my setups. Let's take >the approach to the 1st Lesmo as an example. I start braking right on >the limit and then I begin to ease off the brakes slightly while >beginning to turn in pretty early. My setup allows the car to turn >into the corner well. To prevent the backend from getting too far I >control the car with a little bit of throttle while braking and >turning in.Also bear in mind just what a soft setting does. It slows down the weight
tranfer in the corners. For fast sweepers a top driver can take advantage of
this to "ease" the weight onto the outside tires making for a much smoother
straight to corner transition. They give up a certain amount of "feel" to do
this, but drivers at this level arn't as dependent on that feel.
Some common real world settings are 45/45 60/60 45/85 and 85/85 (if
there is little torque and no tight turns).
More than likely back in 67 they were using 45/85...or at least so I've
been told. Watching footage of the cars of that era it would seem that
is the case judging by the way the rear end wants to whip around in the
transition from power off to power on etc.
Also, their suspension settings were quite soft...just take a look at
the film "Nine Days in Summer" and notice how much dive they get under
braking. Having taped this and watched it several times frame by frame I
have noticed that the rear wheels under heavy loading deflect in the
direction of positive camber.
Its amazing anyone survived that era of racing at all....
> It would be nice to know what settings they really used in real-life
> because I've heard some different stories about that.
>
> -- Greger
