GPL-how real are the setup options??

I actually love GPL in a "this is the closest to a true physics model out there and thank you sooo much Papy" way.Hear me when I say this is in no way putting down this tremendous effort towards realism in racing sims.I find that the "feel" of GPL is very good and that the driving model is deadspot on.What bothers me though is the setup variables and how they dont seem to do what their supposd to. I have read a couple of books on the subject of car setup and feel I know how to set the basics for a good neuteral handling car.What I mean is Springs,Rollbars,ride height.But the things I try just dont give me the results I expect. For instance Camber and rollbar settings.Someone other than Papy has told us GPL doesnt model dynamic camber change with roll(Doug Arnao??).What this means is no matter what you do to prevent roll of the chassis the camber will stay the same.I can live with that since the person states its too cpu intensive at the moment.What I cant live with is that it didnt say this in the manual that came with the game.Many GPL sites say to set rollbars you have to tighten until the readings across the tires are even.GPL does not model dynamic camber change with roll so how can changing the roll of the chassis affect camber??I have gone from both extremes in the rollbar settings and the temps across the tires stays the same.Put zero camber on both rear wheels and burnout for awhile and youll notive that the temps across the rears are even indicating that the squat of the chassis and resulting camber change is not modeled.Again I can live without the dynamic camber change for now:)Papy please tell us this in the manual.This way we can set the camber and forget it. Another thing is weight transfer and ride height.Ride height is the only variable we can change that significantly alters weight transfer.Lower the car and it grips much better(if it doesnt hit the bumpstops)but the temps dont show this happening.I went from 4in ride height to 2.75 and the temps from left to right remained the same.This has nothing to do with dynamic camber so I question the setup menu alot in GPL More Examples: Toe-in has no effect on straightline speed but manual says it does Ride height doesnt alter the tire temps but instead just adds grip as you lower the chassis. No dynamic camber change with roll so no changing the amount of roll the chassis does will have effect. I only write this because I am hoping someone who is compleytly knowlwdgeable on these facts can write a Real setup guide for these simulated GPL cars. For example camber again:In GPL,Camber is not changed by any factor other then how many G's a driver pulls.Just make sure that the tires are even across.Try to go with symetric camber and live with the loss of grip since asymetrical camber causes unstable braking. Toe-in doesnt have any effect on overall speed so set for handling only. It would be great if everyone adds to this list so we can all start to take advantage of the setup menus as the fast guys do:)

Just as a matter of interest for you, Skeeter, the ride height for the Lotus 49 (as debuted at Zandvoort) without driver, was approximately 3.75 inches at the centreline of the front wheels and 4.5 inches at the centreline of the rear wheels. (wheels being the original 15 inch diameter). -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Skeeter <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I actually love GPL in a "this is the closest to a true physics > model out there and thank you sooo much Papy" way.Hear me when I say > this is in no way putting down this tremendous effort towards realism > in racing sims.I find that the "feel" of GPL is very good and that the > driving model is deadspot on.What bothers me though is the setup > variables and how they dont seem to do what their supposd to

Hmm. They may not have simulated the shape of the contact patches, but I am sure they have simulated the size of it (simulating the grip related to camber)... The contact patch size in relation to roll is very fundamental, and I can't imagine this excellent sim not to have this in there... If someone said that GPL doesn't simulate dynamic camber changes, I would guess that this is related to something else, like, for instance the camber change you would see over the suspension travel... If camber changes with roll aren't simulated you would have just as much grip on the outside tires if you rode a high curb on the inside... Try it. I think you lose a lot of grip... ---Asgeir---

On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 10:07:35 +0100, Asgeir Nesoen <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>Hmm. They may not have simulated the shape of the contact patches, but I >am sure they have simulated the size of it (simulating the grip related to >camber)... The contact patch size in relation to roll is very fundamental, >and I can't imagine this excellent sim not to have this in there... > >If someone said that GPL doesn't simulate dynamic camber changes, I would >guess that this is related to something else, like, for instance the >camber change you would see over the suspension travel...

See this is exactly what I mean.Extreme accuracy racing sim companies should tell the buyers how well everything is modeled so we wouldnt have these questions.GPL-2 (hopeing)could have a physics read-me and say stuff like --Toe-in is now modeled completly accurate so any variance from zero will slow the chassis down.Dynamic camber change and roll center change with roll is now modeled.High frequency bumps are now modeled.Camber thrust has been modeled in.Under carriage downforce has been modeled so Rake will take its effect.Etc... What I am guessing they mean by "GPL doesnt model dynamic camber change with roll" is this.In real life,as a car goes around a turn the chassis will roll and depending on how much roll it does,camber will change accordingly.In GPL the cars roll but this doesnt cause a camber change.So a car with lots of roll and a car with very little roll will have the same camber readings. I think I read somenwhere that the camber actually changes due to how much cornering force is being applied.Pull less G's(dont think GPL cars even pulled one G)and youll have less camber change.I wish I knew if this was right.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >If camber changes with roll aren't simulated you would have just as much >grip on the outside tires if you rode a high curb on the inside... Try it. >I think you lose a lot of grip... > >---Asgeir--- >

On 22 Mar 2000, Olav K. Malmin wrote: > asgeir nesen <[email hidden]> writes: > > these guys are protecting their physics engines like their kids... > > Sadly... They should licence it like QuakeIII and Unreal At least one realtime vehicle model (ours - shameless plug!) is available for license, and has been licensed twice so far, once for a game machine (never made it to production[sigh]), other time for <www.smsonline.com>. > > It is absolutely possible to calculate every single aspect of a racing car > > down to the tiniest detail, but not at 36ths of a second... The shortcuts > Make that 288 times per second. 8 times the optimal framerate. When we do analysis (not real time) modeling, for car design, we often use _much_ smaller time steps than this -- for example, to properly model wheel spin-up and spin-down. -- Doug Douglas Milliken <[email hidden]> Milliken Research Associates Inc.

I see your point now, Skeeter. But If camber change is deducted from the G forces in stead of the actual roll, the the camber change is calculated, but from different input. Simulating the physics involved in a racing car on todays computers must necessarily tak a LOT of shortcuts. My guess is that calculating camber on Gs pulled instead of calculating roll, suspension geometry changes and finally camber changes at the contactpatch is way, no, WAY to intensive for a meager PIII 550... And letting people know exactly where every shortcut is in the physics model would mean giving a lot of information away for free, wouldn't it? I mean, these guys are protecting their physics engines like their kids... You could say that GPL is marvellous because it has very accurately modelled physics, but I would state the opposite, GPL is marvellous because Papyrus has been so good at disguising the shortcuts they HAD to do in the physics model. It is absolutely possible to calculate every single aspect of a racing car down to the tiniest detail, but not at 36ths of a second... The shortcuts Papy made are almost impossible to spot... Incredible... ---Asgeir---

Skeeter wrote: > I think I read somenwhere that the camber actually changes due to > how much cornering force is being applied.Pull less G's(dont think GPL > cars even pulled one G)and youll have less camber change.I wish I knew > if this was right. Increased lateral G's requires increasing weight transfer to the outside wheels. This generally causes the suspension to compress more on the outside, and the compression often causes camber changes. (That is, if the camber varies with suspension motion then it will vary with lateral G because of the consequent suspension motion.) -- Matthew V. Jessick Motorsims [email hidden] http://www.motorsims.com Vehicle Dynamics Engineer (972)910-8866 Ext.125, Fax: (972)910-8216

asgeir nes�en <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> I see your point now, Skeeter. > > But If camber change is deducted from the G forces in stead of the actual > roll, the the camber change is calculated, but from different input. > Simulating the physics involved in a racing car on todays computers must > necessarily tak a LOT of shortcuts. My guess is that calculating camber > on Gs pulled instead of calculating roll, suspension geometry changes and > finally camber changes at the contactpatch is way, no, WAY to intensive > for a meager PIII 550... > > And letting people know exactly where every shortcut is in the physics model > would mean giving a lot of information away for free, wouldn't it? I mean, > these guys are protecting their physics engines like their kids...

Sadly... They should licence it like QuakeIII and Unreal <Snip> > It is absolutely possible to calculate every single aspect of a racing car > down to the tiniest detail, but not at 36ths of a second... The shortcuts > Papy made are almost impossible to spot... Incredible... Make that 288 times per second. 8 times the optimal framerate. -- Olav K. Malmin remove spam when replying

Skeeter wrote: > <snipped> > For instance Camber and rollbar settings.Someone other than Papy has > told us GPL doesnt model dynamic camber change with roll(Doug > Arnao??).What this means is no matter what you do to prevent roll of > the chassis the camber will stay the same. <snipped> I think you are confused over the definition of camber change. Camber refers to the relationship between the wheel and the chassis, not the wheel and the road surface. So camber change refers to the change in wheel to chassis angle with suspension travel. So when GPL doesn't model camber change, that means when the chassis rolls and the suspension moves up or down, the camber angle of the wheel in relation to the chassis does not change as is would in a real car with an unequal length A-arm type suspension. This does not mean the angle between the wheel and road doesn't change...it does. When the chassis rolls the wheel leans by the same amount it GPL instead of by a slightly different amount like it would in a real '67 GP car, that difference being the amount of camber change. What makes camber change desirable in the real world is you can run less static camper for better straight line grip and still get the desired wheel to road angle in the corner. Kind of makes straight axle suspensions look good but that's another story. So, the lack of camber change in GPL still means you need to set wheel cambers for the best compromise between cornering grip when the chassis has rolled, and straight line grip for acceleration and braking. This is why GPL still models car physics so well even with out camber change. Good job Papy. Now where are the new sims based on this physics engine? Marty

Marty U'Ren <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Skeeter wrote: >... > So when GPL doesn't model camber change, that means when the chassis rolls > and the suspension moves up or down, the camber angle of the wheel in > relation to the chassis does not change as is would in a real car with an > unequal length A-arm type suspension. This statement is incorrect. GPL does, indeed, model camber change with bump. What it does not model is the change in the *shape* of the camber-vs.-suspension-deflection curve at different ride heights. In GPL, if you set your ride height to 5", and set your static camber to -2.0 degrees, then push the chassis down 1", your camber will change by some amount, X. If you then set your ride height to 4" and your static camber to -2.0 degrees and push the chassis down 1", the camber will still change by X. In real life it would change by an amount probably close to X, but not exactly X (how close would depend on the suspension design). Randy

Now there's something to find out.. What is the travel length of the suspension. If I set the SRH to 2.5 inches, I know the chassis can only travel at max 2.5 inches down before it hits the pavement. Maybe I should ask, "what is the geometry of each cars suspension in regards to suspension travel? Randy Cassidy wrote in message <8bbf17$95s$[email hidden]>... >Marty U'Ren <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> Skeeter wrote: >> >... >> So when GPL doesn't model camber change, that means when the chassisrolls

Quoted text (13 lines)

>> and the suspension moves up or down, the camber angle of the wheel in >> relation to the chassis does not change as is would in a real car with an >> unequal length A-arm type suspension. > >This statement is incorrect. GPL does, indeed, model camber change with >bump. What it does not model is the change in the *shape* of the >camber-vs.-suspension-deflection curve at different ride heights. > >In GPL, if you set your ride height to 5", and set your static camber >to -2.0 degrees, then push the chassis down 1", your camber will change by >some amount, X. If you then set your ride height to 4" and your static >camber to -2.0 degrees and push the chassis down 1", the camber will still >change by X. In real life it would change by an amount probably close to

X, >but not exactly X (how close would depend on the suspension design). > >Randy > >

On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 04:13:47 GMT, "Mike Barlow" <[email hidden]> wrote: > isn't that like downgrading GPL in to a Game? >No! In real life I'm sure as heck going to feel when the suspension hits bottom. I can't for the life of me tell that in GPL. If we don't get the cues, then the sim needs to provide them in some manner. Having a a unique sound would sure help or the screen jarring or something would help those of us with less than omniscient powers. This is not making it a game, even though it is a game..... Jeff

On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 16:41:11 -0500, "Randy Cassidy" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (23 lines)

>Marty U'Ren <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> Skeeter wrote: >> >... >> So when GPL doesn't model camber change, that means when the chassis rolls >> and the suspension moves up or down, the camber angle of the wheel in >> relation to the chassis does not change as is would in a real car with an >> unequal length A-arm type suspension. > >This statement is incorrect. GPL does, indeed, model camber change with >bump. What it does not model is the change in the *shape* of the >camber-vs.-suspension-deflection curve at different ride heights. > >In GPL, if you set your ride height to 5", and set your static camber >to -2.0 degrees, then push the chassis down 1", your camber will change by >some amount, X. If you then set your ride height to 4" and your static >camber to -2.0 degrees and push the chassis down 1", the camber will still >change by X. In real life it would change by an amount probably close to X, >but not exactly X (how close would depend on the suspension design). > >Randy >

Hello Randy,I assume your Papyrus's Randy Cassidy.I know that Papyrus is working on different projects but was wondering if you could do one more tiny patch for GPL.What I think would greatly benefit setting up the cars in GPL is an indicater of when the chassis hits the bumpstops.In a real car you can feel the chassis when it hit the bumpstops and notice the corresponding loss of grip at that end of the car.In GPL we get no indication of this but instead just lose the grip at the axle it happens at.Its hard to tell if the sudden loss of grip at the fronts is due to the weight shifting off of them on accelleration or the fact that they just hit their bumpstops. You could easily use the unused portions of the screen for this.Divided into 4 they could light up when the wheel at that corner of the car hits its bumpstop.It would allow ease of trying different wheel rate/ride height since it could show when the suspension bottoms. Example:_Wheel rate at 50F/75R and a 2.5 rideheight and you see that you hit the bumpstops.Try 55F/80R and 2.5in RH or 50F/75R and 3in RH...you get the point:)Just wondering if alot of people would ask for this,would it be made? >

isn't that like downgrading GPL in to a Game?

Quoted text (24 lines)

> Hello Randy,I assume your Papyrus's Randy Cassidy.I know that >Papyrus is working on different projects but was wondering if you >could do one more tiny patch for GPL.What I think would greatly >benefit setting up the cars in GPL is an indicater of when the chassis >hits the bumpstops.In a real car you can feel the chassis when it hit >the bumpstops and notice the corresponding loss of grip at that end of >the car.In GPL we get no indication of this but instead just lose the >grip at the axle it happens at.Its hard to tell if the sudden loss of >grip at the fronts is due to the weight shifting off of them on >accelleration or the fact that they just hit their bumpstops. > > >You could easily use the unused portions of the screen for >this.Divided into 4 they could light up when the wheel at that corner >of the car hits its bumpstop.It would allow ease of trying different >wheel rate/ride height since it could show when the suspension >bottoms. > > Example:_Wheel rate at 50F/75R and a 2.5 rideheight and you see >that you hit the bumpstops.Try 55F/80R and 2.5in RH or 50F/75R and 3in >RH...you get the point:)Just wondering if alot of people would ask for >this,would it be made? >> >

Why would this make GPL into a game?First off it is a game but we can call it a sim due to its extreme realism in simulating racing:) Like I said a real car gives this very important feedback so you can setup the chassis not to do this.If I take curva grande and my suspension bottoms,I wanna know about it.I dont want to be thinking that I came into fast and overcooked the turn.Once I know I WILL fix it and then there will be no more signs showing me this.Now how is that making GPL into a game? On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 04:13:47 GMT, "Mike Barlow" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (28 lines)

> isn't that like downgrading GPL in to a Game? > >> Hello Randy,I assume your Papyrus's Randy Cassidy.I know that >>Papyrus is working on different projects but was wondering if you >>could do one more tiny patch for GPL.What I think would greatly >>benefit setting up the cars in GPL is an indicater of when the chassis >>hits the bumpstops.In a real car you can feel the chassis when it hit >>the bumpstops and notice the corresponding loss of grip at that end of >>the car.In GPL we get no indication of this but instead just lose the >>grip at the axle it happens at.Its hard to tell if the sudden loss of >>grip at the fronts is due to the weight shifting off of them on >>accelleration or the fact that they just hit their bumpstops. >> >> >>You could easily use the unused portions of the screen for >>this.Divided into 4 they could light up when the wheel at that corner >>of the car hits its bumpstop.It would allow ease of trying different >>wheel rate/ride height since it could show when the suspension >>bottoms. >> >> Example:_Wheel rate at 50F/75R and a 2.5 rideheight and you see >>that you hit the bumpstops.Try 55F/80R and 2.5in RH or 50F/75R and 3in >>RH...you get the point:)Just wondering if alot of people would ask for >>this,would it be made? >>> >> > >

isn't that like downgrading GPL in to a Game?

On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 04:54:43 GMT Skeeter <[email hidden]> wrote: % Why would this make GPL into a game?First off it is a game but we % can call it a sim due to its extreme realism in simulating racing:) % Like I said a real car gives this very important feedback so you can % setup the chassis not to do this.If I take curva grande and my % suspension bottoms,I wanna know about it.I dont want to be thinking % that I came into fast and overcooked the turn.Once I know I WILL fix % it and then there will be no more signs showing me this.Now how is % that making GPL into a game? All we need is a "thump" sound or something to key us into the fact that we have hit the bumpstop. However, with FF there are some very subtle cues that one has hit the bump stops. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. [email hidden] http://www.teleport.com/~mcarver =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

I stand corrected. Now, I have to find where I got that incorrected idea. Thanks for clearing this up. Marty Randy Cassidy wrote:

Quoted text (22 lines)

> Marty U'Ren <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Skeeter wrote: > > > ... > > So when GPL doesn't model camber change, that means when the chassis rolls > > and the suspension moves up or down, the camber angle of the wheel in > > relation to the chassis does not change as is would in a real car with an > > unequal length A-arm type suspension. > > This statement is incorrect. GPL does, indeed, model camber change with > bump. What it does not model is the change in the *shape* of the > camber-vs.-suspension-deflection curve at different ride heights. > > In GPL, if you set your ride height to 5", and set your static camber > to -2.0 degrees, then push the chassis down 1", your camber will change by > some amount, X. If you then set your ride height to 4" and your static > camber to -2.0 degrees and push the chassis down 1", the camber will still > change by X. In real life it would change by an amount probably close to X, > but not exactly X (how close would depend on the suspension design). > > Randy

The original poster wanted to have lights flashing telling us when we hit the bump rubbers. Your suggestions are better then the lights. Jeffrey Haas wrote in message ...

Quoted text (14 lines)

>On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 04:13:47 GMT, "Mike Barlow" ><[email hidden]> wrote: > >> isn't that like downgrading GPL in to a Game? >> >No! In real life I'm sure as heck going to feel when the >suspension hits bottom. I can't for the life of me tell that in >GPL. If we don't get the cues, then the sim needs to provide them >in some manner. Having a a unique sound would sure help or the >screen jarring or something would help those of us with less than >omniscient powers. This is not making it a game, even though it >is a game..... > >Jeff

Wow, that seems a lot of rake... I'll have to try that <g>. But, can you define "centerline of the wheels"? -It would seem to me, assuming no camber, a centerline connecting two 15" wheels would be at 7.5". What I'm getting at is this: how do you correctly measure ride height? -At the Zolder Historic GP I measured a 1968 Cooper BRM; the lowest attachment point of the rear suspension was 3.8" off the ground (bottom rung of the rear suspension, connected to the gearbox). The bottom of the gear box was about 0.75" lower I guess. I have an "rain light-level" picture of the car. Assuming the right method, I can maybe calculate the correct ride height (I can send you the pic to doodle on if you like). Jan. =--- Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Just as a matter of interest for you, Skeeter, the ride height for theLotus

Quoted text (11 lines)

> 49 (as debuted at Zandvoort) without driver, was approximately 3.75 inches > at the centreline of the front wheels and 4.5 inches at the centreline of > the rear wheels. (wheels being the original 15 inch diameter). > > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > <Snip>

Randy, Is it documented anywhere what the weights, weight distributions and hp/torque curves of the cars and engines for GPL? I noticed them displayed in Nate Hines' new utility and immediately wondered where he might of obtained them. I expect some historical research would dredge up the numbers for the F1 cars, but I was looking at an F2 setup and I understand they all use the same "engine". Also, what's the rear wheel diameter used for speed calcs? I marvel at the "skull sweat" that went into creating GPL. Anybody ever get it running as a server on a Linux/Wine box? I have this vision of a small, inexpensive server farm tied to a T1 line... <g> Thanks, Brett C. Cammack That's Racing! Motorsports Pompano Beach, FL

So ride height = clearance of the lowest part of the car at a given end, along an imaginary line between the centers of the contact patches.... got that. Thanks. Jan. ---- Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Okay....let me put it this way: > > The blueprint (not a photograph...an actual draftsmans drawing of the > original Lotus 49 with DFV installed. Yes...a copy of an originaldrawing.) > that I'm looking at and scaling off gives a minimum clearance under thetub > of 3.75 inches at the front at a point that is midway between the contact > patch of the left-hand wheel and the contact patch of the right-handwheel.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Ditto for the rear except the clearance is under the transaxle (the tub > ending at the firewall). > > Now...not having a micrometer or vernier calipers, and not having a > microscope, I cannot verify the this blueprint (at 1:5 scale) is 100% > accurate or that my measurements are equally accurate, which is the reason

I

Quoted text (11 lines)

> said "approximately". > > Does that help? > > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > ,snip>

Okay....let me put it this way: The blueprint (not a photograph...an actual draftsmans drawing of the original Lotus 49 with DFV installed. Yes...a copy of an original drawing.) that I'm looking at and scaling off gives a minimum clearance under the tub of 3.75 inches at the front at a point that is midway between the contact patch of the left-hand wheel and the contact patch of the right-hand wheel. Ditto for the rear except the clearance is under the transaxle (the tub ending at the firewall). Now...not having a micrometer or vernier calipers, and not having a microscope, I cannot verify the this blueprint (at 1:5 scale) is 100% accurate or that my measurements are equally accurate, which is the reason I said "approximately". Does that help? -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Jan Verschueren <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:4IyC4.21667$[email hidden]... > Wow, that seems a lot of rake... I'll have to try that <g>. > > But, can you define "centerline of the wheels"? -It would seem to me, > assuming no camber, a centerline connecting two 15" wheels would be at 7.5". > > What I'm getting at is this: how do you correctly measure ride height? -At > the Zolder Historic GP I measured a 1968 Cooper BRM; the lowest attachment > point of the rear suspension was 3.8" off the ground (bottom rung of the > rear suspension, connected to the gearbox). The bottom of the gear box was > about 0.75" lower I guess. I have an "rain light-level" picture of the car. > Assuming the right method, I can maybe calculate the correct ride height (I > can send you the pic to doodle on if you like). > > Jan. > =--- > Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Just as a matter of interest for you, Skeeter, the ride height for the > Lotus > > 49 (as debuted at Zandvoort) without driver, was approximately 3.75 inches > > at the centreline of the front wheels and 4.5 inches at the centreline of > > the rear wheels. (wheels being the original 15 inch diameter). > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Bruce Kennewell, > > Canberra, Australia. > > --------------------------- > > > > <Snip> > >

Yum! I want one. I want it now. Help me. --DK [snip] drawing.) [snip]

Yum! I want one. I want it now. Help me. --DK "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... [snip] > The blueprint (not a photograph...an actual draftsmans drawing of the > original Lotus 49 with DFV installed. Yes...a copy of an originaldrawing.) [snip]

Okay. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Jan Verschueren <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:yeTC4.26758$[email hidden]... > So ride height = clearance of the lowest part of the car at a given end, > along an imaginary line between the centers of the contact patches.... got > that. > > Thanks. > > Jan. > ---- > > Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Okay....let me put it this way: > > > > The blueprint (not a photograph...an actual draftsmans drawing of the > > original Lotus 49 with DFV installed. Yes...a copy of an original > drawing.) > > that I'm looking at and scaling off gives a minimum clearance under the > tub > > of 3.75 inches at the front at a point that is midway between the contact > > patch of the left-hand wheel and the contact patch of the right-hand > wheel. > > > > Ditto for the rear except the clearance is under the transaxle (the tub > > ending at the firewall). > > > > Now...not having a micrometer or vernier calipers, and not having a > > microscope, I cannot verify the this blueprint (at 1:5 scale) is 100% > > accurate or that my measurements are equally accurate, which is the reason > I > > said "approximately". > > > > Does that help? > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Bruce Kennewell, > > Canberra, Australia. > > --------------------------- > > > > ,snip> > >

So would I, mate....so would I! Sadly it isn't mine...it belongs in the collection of a good friend who has more "old" motor-racing stuff (magazines, books, memorabilia, models, knick-knacks etc.) than you can poke a stick at. He has just taken a new wife (that sounds very Edwardian, doesn't it?!!) and has been moving stuff around in his house. During this he asked if I'd like to sort some of his magazines as was interested in looking through some old "Racing Car News" mags (Australian) from the 1960s (I was looking for Tasman Cup information). In the carton was an old manila enevelope containing some drawings, or repros, to be accurate, (mostly engines...those 3-view and exploded drawings) and one of them is a plan and elevation of the Type 49. I asked Pete where he got it and he doesn't know......he thinks it was through a magazine back in the late 1960s, early 1970s. Incidentally, the drawing *clearly* shows the offset of the steering wheel in the plan view....must be about two inches or so (there are no dimensions on the drawing). -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- David Karr <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8biel9$f0h$[email hidden]... > Yum! I want one. I want it now. Help me. > > --DK > > > "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > [snip] > > The blueprint (not a photograph...an actual draftsmans drawing of the > > original Lotus 49 with DFV installed. Yes...a copy of an original > drawing.) > [snip] > >