GPL: Who uses "historic" settings?

I'm curious. How many of you are using historically realistic (or as close as the sim will allow) suspension and diff settings? (I run all my cars at a minimum of 4.25 inches GC and differentials at either 45/85 or 30/85. The diff settings really make for a hell of a driving experience!!). -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

I would say that I am almost exclusively using historically realistic settings, Bruce. I am always in the 60-80 lbf/inch range with the springs, never use ride heights lower than 3.5 inches, I use often a relatively stiff front ARB and a soft rear bar (120 front, 60 rear), I always use diff settings of 60/85 or 45/85 (85/85 at Monaco). The bad thing is that my PBs are almost exclusively those "ugly" laps where I just mash the throttle on the exit. It shouldn't work in real life, but it does work in GPL... :-((( GPL doesn't award smoothness as it should!!! ---Asgeir--- Bruce Kennewell wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

> I'm curious. > How many of you are using historically realistic (or as close as the sim > will allow) suspension and diff settings? > > (I run all my cars at a minimum of 4.25 inches GC and differentials at > either 45/85 or 30/85. The diff settings really make for a hell of a > driving experience!!). > > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- > http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! > ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

I try to as much as possible (whats the point otherwise, you may as well play GP2 if you want no suspension travel and rock hard springs), but information is so scarce that apart from springs and ground clearance some of the other settings are a bit of an educated guess. I felt that an 'authentic' movement was building in r.a.s. last year, but it has fizzled out a bit. Steve Bruce Kennewell wrote in message <38b111eb$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (19 lines)

>I'm curious. >How many of you are using historically realistic (or as close as the sim >will allow) suspension and diff settings? > >(I run all my cars at a minimum of 4.25 inches GC and differentials at >either 45/85 or 30/85. The diff settings really make for a hell of a >driving experience!!). > >-- >Regards, >Bruce Kennewell, >Canberra, Australia. >--------------------------- > > > > > > -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News

==---------- > http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! >------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers==-----

Quoted text (14 lines)

> I would say that I am almost exclusively using historically realistic settings, > Bruce. > I am always in the 60-80 lbf/inch range with the springs, never use ride heights > lower than 3.5 inches, I use often a relatively stiff front ARB and a soft rear bar > (120 front, 60 rear), I always use diff settings of 60/85 or 45/85 (85/85 at > Monaco). > The bad thing is that my PBs are almost exclusively those "ugly" laps where I just > mash the throttle on the exit. It shouldn't work in real life, but it does work in > GPL... :-((( > GPL doesn't award smoothness as it should!!! > ---Asgeir---

I do not know what the correct historic settings were (can someone please point me to a source?), but as my driving style is smooth, I notice that the settings that work for me are really close to what you describe here (my favourite diff on the Ferrari is for example 60/60). Gives you something to think about, doesn't it (though I am not sure what it is ;) )?

I don't. I'm in it for the racing and could care less of the theme. If it wasn't for GPL's good physic's I probably wouldn't even have bought GPL.

Quoted text (17 lines)

> I'm curious. > How many of you are using historically realistic (or as close as the sim > will allow) suspension and diff settings? > (I run all my cars at a minimum of 4.25 inches GC and differentials at > either 45/85 or 30/85. The diff settings really make for a hell of a > driving experience!!). > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- > http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! > ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

> (I run all my cars at a minimum of 4.25 inches GC and differentials at > either 45/85 or 30/85. Bruce, I sympathize with your attitude. But (you guessed this was coming) when racing online my competitive instincts take over, and I go for the quickest setup - realistic or not. Maybe it's time for a GPL Classic league... Problem is, what settings are historically accurate? How do you know what they were using in those days? -- Bye, Leo

On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 21:33:59 +1100, "Bruce Kennewell"

Quoted text (7 lines)

>I'm curious. >How many of you are using historically realistic (or as close as the sim >will allow) suspension and diff settings? >(I run all my cars at a minimum of 4.25 inches GC and differentials at >either 45/85 or 30/85. The diff settings really make for a hell of a >driving experience!!).

I'm curious to know how you can handle a 30/85 diff!! I did a number of tests of various diff combinations at the Glen in the Lotus, trying to find what combination would allow correct differential action, whilst limiting inside rear spin and without going too far to outside rear spin. The best setting should allow the inside rear to spin only just before the outside, to stop the rear end sliding out. I found that 30 deg. would only allow 1 clutch before the rear was mostly locked. 45 was also only 1, and 60 was about 2. However 85 degrees allows a big tuning potential, since you really need 6 clutches to fully lock up the outside rear, or only 2 or 3 for a spinning inside wheel. That is why the 85 diff is so popular. There just isn't any room to adjust with the 60 deg. diff. 3 is too much, 2 is too little. At least that is what I found. I've tried the same as you in the name of historical settings and what seemed more "correct", but the bottom line is that in gpl they don't work very well, at least in terms of driveability. I congratulate you on being able to control these bastards with those settings, but how do you go around Monaco???? Also, how many clutches do you use? How quick are the cars using your setups? Rafe Mc

: I would say that I am almost exclusively using historically realistic settings, : Bruce. : I am always in the 60-80 lbf/inch range with the springs, never use ride heights : lower than 3.5 inches, I use often a relatively stiff front ARB and a soft rear bar : (120 front, 60 rear), I always use diff settings of 60/85 or 45/85 (85/85 at : Monaco). : The bad thing is that my PBs are almost exclusively those "ugly" laps where I just : mash the throttle on the exit. It shouldn't work in real life, but it does work in : GPL... :-((( : GPL doesn't award smoothness as it should!!! Take some clutches out then. With those diff settings I think you could say goodbye to "mashing the throttle" forever. -- Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

Hi Bruce :)

Quoted text (7 lines)

> I'm curious. > How many of you are using historically realistic (or as close as the sim > will allow) suspension and diff settings? > (I run all my cars at a minimum of 4.25 inches GC and differentials at > either 45/85 or 30/85. The diff settings really make for a hell of a > driving experience!!).

In my search for a GPL setup that feels right to drive, I've so far reached a point of using setups that have rideheights of 3.5-4.0 inches, springs in the range of 65-75lb/ft front, 100-110 rear, ARBs of 130-150 lb/in front, 70-80 rear, and I use a diff of 60/60 with 2 clutches. I don't like using an 85 power side diff, that has just too much inner wheelspin, but 30 and 45 is just too hard to control the rear of the car exiting a corner :( The rear is either gripping, or snapping ***ly away - there just isn't enough of a transition to control. On the coasting side, 85 makes the car a little too twitchy to control when trailbraking for me :) 60 gives the sharp responsive turnin but while still being controllable. I don't think these setups induce a wild driving style - if i get too *** the gas exiting a turn the back WILL come around on me :) I find to get the best exit I have to be straightening up the wheel, or even countersteering, to keep the weight from transferring off the inside rear, but this only works best when I'm keeping the car pointing straightish, rather than rather sideways. I do probably get somewhat sideways sometimes when trail braking, but that's because the car is well balanced, and serves it's purpose for slowing down the car :) My fastest laps always come when I'm being the smoothest. I don't know if you'd consider my driving to be "too wild" or what, but if you're interested in judging I could send you a replay of a 1:25.9 at zandvort in the cooper, and the setup. I find the cooper responds really well to the 60/60/2 diff. I also appear to like starting paragraphs with the letter "I". hmmmmm. Grant.

Besides: I historical correctness means setups that is slower, and GPL models handling accurately, then history was wrong; the drivers of '67 should have been using different setups..... Jon

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > (I run all my cars at a minimum of 4.25 inches GC and differentials at > > either 45/85 or 30/85. > Bruce, I sympathize with your attitude. But (you guessed this was > coming) when racing online my competitive instincts take over, and I go > for the quickest setup - realistic or not. Maybe it's time for a GPL > Classic league... > Problem is, what settings are historically accurate? How do you know > what they were using in those days? > -- > Bye, > Leo

I've tinkered with a 45/85 diff a bit. If you disconnect the rear roll bar and make the front fairly stiff, you can get rid of some of the oversteer. However, I find this results in a setup that is far too soft to be competitive. If you want to be "historically correct" I guess a soft setup is exactly what you want, but expect to be a good second or two slower than you usually are. I suspect the lack of high frequency bumps in GPL is what makes the stiffer setups work so well. Personally, I use setups like the hotlappers use, very low, stiff, and with a 85/30 diff. Because I think we can only make the most of the imperfect (but wonderful) physics model that Papy gave us, and because I've seen a few too many pictures of the real Lotus 49 practically scraping the ground, and of course because winning races is more fun than making excuses. -A

Quoted text (33 lines)

>On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 21:33:59 +1100, "Bruce Kennewell" >>I'm curious. >>How many of you are using historically realistic (or as close as the sim >>will allow) suspension and diff settings? >>(I run all my cars at a minimum of 4.25 inches GC and differentials at >>either 45/85 or 30/85. The diff settings really make for a hell of a >>driving experience!!). >I'm curious to know how you can handle a 30/85 diff!! I did a number >of tests of various diff combinations at the Glen in the Lotus, trying >to find what combination would allow correct differential action, >whilst limiting inside rear spin and without going too far to outside >rear spin. The best setting should allow the inside rear to spin only >just before the outside, to stop the rear end sliding out. I found >that 30 deg. would only allow 1 clutch before the rear was mostly >locked. 45 was also only 1, and 60 was about 2. However 85 degrees >allows a big tuning potential, since you really need 6 clutches to >fully lock up the outside rear, or only 2 or 3 for a spinning inside >wheel. That is why the 85 diff is so popular. There just isn't any >room to adjust with the 60 deg. diff. 3 is too much, 2 is too little. >At least that is what I found. >I've tried the same as you in the name of historical settings and what >seemed more "correct", but the bottom line is that in gpl they don't >work very well, at least in terms of driveability. I congratulate you >on being able to control these bastards with those settings, but how >do you go around Monaco???? Also, how many clutches do you use? How >quick are the cars using your setups? >Rafe Mc

Yes,, of course I forgot to mention the ARB settings, Asgeir. And you're correct......smoothness doesn't seem to be rewarded! -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- > I would say that I am almost exclusively using historically realistic settings, > Bruce. > I am always in the 60-80 lbf/inch range with the springs, never use ride heights > lower than 3.5 inches, I use often a relatively stiff front ARB and a soft rear bar > (120 front, 60 rear), I always use diff settings of 60/85 or 45/85 (85/85 at > Monaco). > The bad thing is that my PBs are almost exclusively those "ugly" laps where I just > mash the throttle on the exit. It shouldn't work in real life, but it does work in > GPL... :-((( > GPL doesn't award smoothness as it should!!! > ---Asgeir--- > > I'm curious. > > How many of you are using historically realistic (or as close as the sim > > will allow) suspension and diff settings? > > (I run all my cars at a minimum of 4.25 inches GC and differentials at > > either 45/85 or 30/85. The diff settings really make for a hell of a > > driving experience!!). > > -- > > Regards, > > Bruce Kennewell, > > Canberra, Australia. > > --------------------------- > > -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- > > http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! > > ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==----- -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

An interesting fact regarding Jim Clark and the Lotus he used in 1967. It was only ever "tweaked" twice during the season and one of those tweaks was reversed (the toe-in was changed by a third of a degree or something like that. He didn't like the handling change so it was changed back for the next race!) Pity that the "authentic movement" has faded out. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- > I try to as much as possible (whats the point otherwise, you may as well > play GP2 if you want no suspension travel and rock hard springs), but > information is so scarce that apart from springs and ground clearance some > of the other settings are a bit of an educated guess. I felt that an > 'authentic' movement was building in r.a.s. last year, but it has fizzled > out a bit. > Steve > >I'm curious. > >How many of you are using historically realistic (or as close as the sim > >will allow) suspension and diff settings? > >(I run all my cars at a minimum of 4.25 inches GC and differentials at > >either 45/85 or 30/85. The diff settings really make for a hell of a > >driving experience!!). > >-- > >Regards, > >Bruce Kennewell, > >Canberra, Australia. > >--------------------------- > > -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News > ==---------- > > http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! > >------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers > ==----- -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

Actually, both were reversed, according to Mr. Oliver :-) But he was talking about the changes made by the driver. The team (probably Mr. Chapman) adapted ride height, spring rates etc. for each track. Graham Hill on the other hand changed a lot of settings AND kept meticulous records of all values. Now if we could just have a look in that book... Bye, Leo

There is enough information available to get a pretty accurate idea of what the suspension settings were....particularly ride-height (and the only "ground-scraping" that Lotus 49s did was under heavy braking). Information on transaxle settings are also available from Mike Hewland, for one, and also ZF. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- > > (I run all my cars at a minimum of 4.25 inches GC and differentials at > > either 45/85 or 30/85. > Bruce, I sympathize with your attitude. But (you guessed this was > coming) when racing online my competitive instincts take over, and I go > for the quickest setup - realistic or not. Maybe it's time for a GPL > Classic league... > Problem is, what settings are historically accurate? How do you know > what they were using in those days? > -- > Bye, > Leo -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

In essence, Rafe, I go very slowly in comparison to the hot-shots out there amongst you. The 30/85 diff I use on the F2 (or, as I prefer to think of them, the 1.5 litre) class. Usually with 3 clutches. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- > On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 21:33:59 +1100, "Bruce Kennewell" > >I'm curious. > >How many of you are using historically realistic (or as close as the sim > >will allow) suspension and diff settings? > >(I run all my cars at a minimum of 4.25 inches GC and differentials at > >either 45/85 or 30/85. The diff settings really make for a hell of a > >driving experience!!). > I'm curious to know how you can handle a 30/85 diff!! I did a number > of tests of various diff combinations at the Glen in the Lotus, trying > to find what combination would allow correct differential action, > whilst limiting inside rear spin and without going too far to outside > rear spin. The best setting should allow the inside rear to spin only > just before the outside, to stop the rear end sliding out. I found > that 30 deg. would only allow 1 clutch before the rear was mostly > locked. 45 was also only 1, and 60 was about 2. However 85 degrees > allows a big tuning potential, since you really need 6 clutches to > fully lock up the outside rear, or only 2 or 3 for a spinning inside > wheel. That is why the 85 diff is so popular. There just isn't any > room to adjust with the 60 deg. diff. 3 is too much, 2 is too little. > At least that is what I found. > I've tried the same as you in the name of historical settings and what > seemed more "correct", but the bottom line is that in gpl they don't > work very well, at least in terms of driveability. I congratulate you > on being able to control these bastards with those settings, but how > do you go around Monaco???? Also, how many clutches do you use? How > quick are the cars using your setups? > Rafe Mc -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

> the drivers of '67 > should have been using different setups..... Hehe... only IF those drivers were immortal, had unlimited funds to replace cars, unlimited time to practice (or a Shift+R option :-). In real life they had only a few hours of practice, one car, one life. So they went for a setup that was safe for a 2 hour or 300 km race. It's a ***y miracle they were as fast as they were! -- Bye, Leo

"History was wrong"???!!! Ummmm...okay then. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- > Besides: I historical correctness means setups that is slower, and GPL > models handling accurately, then history was wrong; the drivers of '67 > should have been using different setups..... > Jon > > > (I run all my cars at a minimum of 4.25 inches GC and differentials at > > > either 45/85 or 30/85. > > Bruce, I sympathize with your attitude. But (you guessed this was > > coming) when racing online my competitive instincts take over, and I go > > for the quickest setup - realistic or not. Maybe it's time for a GPL > > Classic league... > > Problem is, what settings are historically accurate? How do you know > > what they were using in those days? > > -- > > Bye, > > Leo -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

Why would you want to look at Graham's book? He finished behind Clark. I'd rather talk to Jim's mechanic. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- > > It was only ever "tweaked" twice during the season and one of those > > tweaks was reversed. > Actually, both were reversed, according to Mr. Oliver :-) > But he was talking about the changes made by the driver. The team (probably > Mr. Chapman) adapted ride height, spring rates etc. for each track. > Graham Hill on the other hand changed a lot of settings AND kept meticulous > records of all values. Now if we could just have a look in that book... > Bye, > Leo -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

Wrong Bruce. There was another change to his car. Jim was very light on his brakes whilst Hill was something of an animal. They had to put a new set of pads on Hill's car after every race. It was reported that they changed Clark's pads half way through the season because the mechanics were getting embarrased about not having to do so. By all accounts, those removed, would have done for the rest of the year. MS > An interesting fact regarding Jim Clark and the Lotus he used in 1967. It > was only ever "tweaked" twice during the season and one of those tweaks was

Quoted text (18 lines)

> reversed (the toe-in was changed by a third of a degree or something like > that. He didn't like the handling change so it was changed back for the > next race!) > Pity that the "authentic movement" has faded out. > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > I try to as much as possible (whats the point otherwise, you may as well > > play GP2 if you want no suspension travel and rock hard springs), but > > information is so scarce that apart from springs and ground clearance

some > > of the other settings are a bit of an educated guess. I felt that an > > 'authentic' movement was building in r.a.s. last year, but it has fizzled

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > out a bit. > > Steve > > >I'm curious. > > >How many of you are using historically realistic (or as close as the

sim

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > >will allow) suspension and diff settings? > > >(I run all my cars at a minimum of 4.25 inches GC and differentials at > > >either 45/85 or 30/85. The diff settings really make for a hell of a > > >driving experience!!). > > >-- > > >Regards, > > >Bruce Kennewell, > > >Canberra, Australia. > > >--------------------------- > > > -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News > > ==---------- > > > http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the > World! > > >------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries

Servers > > ==----- > -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- > http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! > ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

Had they done just that, you would not have seen many of them alive now my friend! MS : I historical correctness means setups that is slower, and GPL

Quoted text (25 lines)

> models handling accurately, then history was wrong; the drivers of '67 > should have been using different setups..... > Jon > > > (I run all my cars at a minimum of 4.25 inches GC and differentials at > > > either 45/85 or 30/85. > > Bruce, I sympathize with your attitude. But (you guessed this was > > coming) when racing online my competitive instincts take over, and I go > > for the quickest setup - realistic or not. Maybe it's time for a GPL > > Classic league... > > Problem is, what settings are historically accurate? How do you know > > what they were using in those days? > > -- > > Bye, > > Leo

If, by "safe", you mean the least life-threatening, you're very wrong, Leo. They "went for a setup" (which may have been nothing more than adjusting the toe-in by a poof***th) that the technology and design of the day allowed. Then they got in and drove the fastest laps that they could and still stay on the black stuff. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- > > the drivers of '67 > > should have been using different setups..... > Hehe... only IF those drivers were immortal, had unlimited funds to > replace cars, unlimited time to practice (or a Shift+R option :-). > In real life they had only a few hours of practice, one car, one life. > So they went for a setup that was safe for a 2 hour or 300 km race. It's > a ***y miracle they were as fast as they were! > -- > Bye, > Leo -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

That would be Allan McCall. Or Leo Wybrott for the Tasman series. Both are still alive. Anyone know their e-mail address? Bye, Leo

On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 21:33:59 +1100, "Bruce Kennewell"

Quoted text (7 lines)

>I'm curious. >How many of you are using historically realistic (or as close as the sim >will allow) suspension and diff settings? >(I run all my cars at a minimum of 4.25 inches GC and differentials at >either 45/85 or 30/85. The diff settings really make for a hell of a >driving experience!!).

Bruce, what kind of bump stop settings do you use with your high riding setups? How does it effect control over bumps, etc.? What spring rates do you use in conjuction with this? Most people just set the bump stops at minimum, but they were obviously well used in real life. Any idea of the settings used at the time? Rafe Mc

: I'm curious. : How many of you are using historically realistic (or as close as the sim : will allow) ... settings? Well, I have been known to put on a set of pristine white coveralls and style my hair with Brylcreem before stepping up to the computer... :-) Stephen p.s. yes, I shamelessly edited out part of your question.

Quoted text (10 lines)

>: I'm curious. >: How many of you are using historically realistic (or as close as the sim >: will allow) ... settings? >Well, I have been known to put on a set of pristine white coveralls and >style my hair with Brylcreem before stepping up to the computer... :-) >Stephen >p.s. yes, I shamelessly edited out part of your question.

When I got for that look, I usually put on an Englishman's handlebar moustache before getting into my Lotus:) Rafe Mc

I'd prefer their postal address, if you can dig it up, Leo. Are they in Britain or did Alan come back down under? -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- > > I'd rather talk to Jim's mechanic. > That would be Allan McCall. Or Leo Wybrott for the Tasman series. Both are > still alive. Anyone know their e-mail address? > Bye, > Leo -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

:-) I don't consider changing a set of pads as "tweaking", Ron!! It was said, when he (Clark) raced here in his last Tasman series, that his car was not "tweaked" from the time it arrived to the time it left. (I think they mean that it carried the same basic settings throughout the series). If true then that is certainly an indication of the brilliance of the bloke. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- > Wrong Bruce. > There was another change to his car. Jim was very light on his brakes whilst > Hill was something of an animal. They had to put a new set of pads on Hill's > car after every race. It was reported that they changed Clark's pads half > way through the season because the mechanics were getting embarrased about > not having to do so. By all accounts, those removed, would have done for the > rest of the year. > MS > > An interesting fact regarding Jim Clark and the Lotus he used in 1967. It > > was only ever "tweaked" twice during the season and one of those tweaks > was > > reversed (the toe-in was changed by a third of a degree or something like > > that. He didn't like the handling change so it was changed back for the > > next race!) > > Pity that the "authentic movement" has faded out. > > -- > > Regards, > > Bruce Kennewell, > > Canberra, Australia. > > --------------------------- > > > I try to as much as possible (whats the point otherwise, you may as well > > > play GP2 if you want no suspension travel and rock hard springs), but > > > information is so scarce that apart from springs and ground clearance > some > > > of the other settings are a bit of an educated guess. I felt that an > > > 'authentic' movement was building in r.a.s. last year, but it has > fizzled > > > out a bit. > > > Steve > > > >I'm curious. > > > >How many of you are using historically realistic (or as close as the > sim > > > >will allow) suspension and diff settings? > > > >(I run all my cars at a minimum of 4.25 inches GC and differentials at > > > >either 45/85 or 30/85. The diff settings really make for a hell of a > > > >driving experience!!). > > > >-- > > > >Regards, > > > >Bruce Kennewell, > > > >Canberra, Australia. > > > >--------------------------- > > > > -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News > > > ==---------- > > > > http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the > > World! > > > >------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries > Servers > > > ==----- > > -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News > ==---------- > > http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! > > ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers > ==----- -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

bloke. You think so? I dunno, perhaps it also indicates his total lack of understanding of what a setup can do for the car?

I use nothing less than 1.5 inches....usually 1.75, Rafe. I believe, but cannot guarantee, that settings of this order were common. Spring rates are never higher than 3. What effect does it have over bumps? Well.......it gives a softer "feel" but I really haven't compared with harder settings because right from the outset I only used "realistic" settings. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- > On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 21:33:59 +1100, "Bruce Kennewell" > >I'm curious. > >How many of you are using historically realistic (or as close as the sim > >will allow) suspension and diff settings? > >(I run all my cars at a minimum of 4.25 inches GC and differentials at > >either 45/85 or 30/85. The diff settings really make for a hell of a > >driving experience!!). > Bruce, what kind of bump stop settings do you use with your high > riding setups? How does it effect control over bumps, etc.? What > spring rates do you use in conjuction with this? Most people just set > the bump stops at minimum, but they were obviously well used in real > life. Any idea of the settings used at the time? > Rafe Mc -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

Well, "Mr. Smooth", welcome to 1967! :-) -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- > : I'm curious. > : How many of you are using historically realistic (or as close as the sim > : will allow) ... settings? > Well, I have been known to put on a set of pristine white coveralls and > style my hair with Brylcreem before stepping up to the computer... :-) > Stephen > p.s. yes, I shamelessly edited out part of your question. -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

I put the "man-in-hathaway-shirt" eye-patch on, and promptly crashed out of the race. Realism, be damned!! --DK

Quoted text (10 lines)

> : I'm curious. > : How many of you are using historically realistic (or as close as the sim > : will allow) ... settings? > Well, I have been known to put on a set of pristine white coveralls and > style my hair with Brylcreem before stepping up to the computer... :-) > Stephen > p.s. yes, I shamelessly edited out part of your question.

:> It was only ever "tweaked" twice during the season and one of those :> tweaks was reversed. : Actually, both were reversed, according to Mr. Oliver :-) : But he was talking about the changes made by the driver. The team (probably : Mr. Chapman) adapted ride height, spring rates etc. for each track. Are you sure about that? The impression given by an article I read (I think in F1 racing so no guarantee of quality or accuracy there) was that Clark kept the same spring settings all season - which seemed like idiocy to me.... but that was the impression given by the article that he used the same set ups all the time. : Graham Hill on the other hand changed a lot of settings AND kept meticulous : records of all values. Now if we could just have a look in that book... Actually, I think that Chapman said that he just drove around ***ing around moving the ride hide up and down until he "just" wasn't touching the bump ***s on the corners. It annoyed the hell out of his mechanics apparently. -- Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

:> :-) :> I don't consider changing a set of pads as "tweaking", Ron!! :> :> It was said, when he (Clark) raced here in his last Tasman series, that : his :> car was not "tweaked" from the time it arrived to the time it left. (I :> think they mean that it carried the same basic settings throughout the :> series). :> If true then that is certainly an indication of the brilliance of the : bloke. : You think so? I dunno, perhaps it also indicates his total lack of : understanding of what a setup can do for the car? Yes... there was a long thread about this on rec.autos.sports.f1.moderated. Some people took it as a sign of his brilliance I took it as a significant weakness in his abilities. After all, you're nowhere in modern F1 if you can't do set-up. -- Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

Yes, or to be more accurate, I had understood that the way "we" setup our 1967 Lotus in GPL (which is alike to how modern GP-cars get tuned) has nothing to do with the way it was done in 1967-reallife. They simply used the stock setup, and "compensate for the rest". (wasn't that written in the GPL-manual?). Changes to Clark's car I read about were a change to the bars in Silverstone (which was undone), and disconnecting the bars altogether for the Ring (which was common practise). I would love to have an overview of the setup-changes (parameters) they DID make from race to race. Do you know what they changed?

And of course, we're all in agreement that during his (too-short) career, Mr. Clark was indeed simply "nowhere." --DK [snip]

I fail to see the logic in this argument. The definition of a great driver is one who can jump in to ANY car and blast round in a faster time than anyone else, lap after lap after lap... Setting up your car properly does not make you a great driver. It only makes your car faster. Putting all drivers in identical machinery is the true test of a drivers ability. In that scenarion, I would bet my bank account on Clark beating Hill every time. (and that's not just because I'm Scottish) Just my opinion... =) ...Colin Richard G Clegg <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8937en$ad7$[email hidden]... > David Karr <[email hidden]> wrote: > : And of course, we're all in agreement that during his (too-short)career,

Quoted text (26 lines)

> : Mr. Clark was indeed simply "nowhere." > > I said in MODERN F1. Clark could get away with not doing set-up back > in the 60s. I would not work today. Further I would contend that he'd > have been faster still if he had learned how to set up a car. > > (However, it does seem these days to be heresy to suggest that Jimmy > Clark wasn't absolutely perfect all the time at all tracks and with > all aspects of any racing vehicle) > > : "Richard G Clegg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > : news:890vga$lmq$[email hidden] > > : [snip] > :>Some people took it as a sign of his > :>brilliance I took it as a significant weakness in his abilities. After > :>all, you're nowhere in modern F1 if you can't do set-up. > > > > > -- > Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving > Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group > Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York > www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

Well, Ron Tauranac is on record as saying that stuff-all was changed between circuits except transaxle ratios if the next circuit was vastly different (i.e., from Kyalami to Monaco, for example.). Apart from that very little was changed and the only serious testing that was done would be if a significant mod had been developed, or different tyres or something similar. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- �artijn <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:01bf7e41$cfd3c700$831140d4@martijnk... > > Yes, or to be more accurate, I had understood that the way "we" setup our > 1967 Lotus in GPL (which is alike to how modern GP-cars get tuned) has > nothing to do with the way it was done in 1967-reallife. They simply used > the stock setup, and "compensate for the rest". (wasn't that written in the > GPL-manual?). Changes to Clark's car I read about were a change to the bars > in Silverstone (which was undone), and disconnecting the bars altogether > for the Ring (which was common practise). > > I would love to have an overview of the setup-changes (parameters) they DID > make from race to race. Do you know what they changed? > > > > Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> schreef in artikel > <38b442d8$[email hidden]>... > > I think, Martin, that you are attempting to relate "How to Set Up Your > 1999 > > F1 Williams" with "How To Set Up Your 1967 Lotus"! > > > > For a start, the current manual would fill several volumes whereas the > 1967 > > edition might take up all the pages in a small notepad! > > > > > You think so? I dunno, perhaps it also indicates his total lack of > > > understanding of what a setup can do for the car? > > > > > -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

:-) Right on! -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- David Karr <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:891tth$878$[email hidden]... > And of course, we're all in agreement that during his (too-short) career, > Mr. Clark was indeed simply "nowhere." > > --DK > > > "Richard G Clegg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:890vga$lmq$[email hidden] > > [snip] > >Some people took it as a sign of his > >brilliance I took it as a significant weakness in his abilities. After > >all, you're nowhere in modern F1 if you can't do set-up. > > > -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

Okay. In the meantime I'll drop a line to a mate in Wales who might have some info. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Leo Landman <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:891pst$2jg$[email hidden]... > > Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in [email hidden]... > > > I'd prefer their postal address, if you can dig it up, Leo. Are they in > > Britain or did Alan come back down under? > > Bruce, I have no idea. I'll see if I can find a way of establishing contact. > > Bye, > Leo > > -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

Ditto here, Gregor. I use a base setting that is identical for all circuits. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Gregor Veble <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I thought it appropriate to put my observations here. Namely, after > developing setups for different tracks in GPL for quite some time now, > what I've found out is that the final results are really not very much > different from track to track (well, at least considering the 'normal' > tracks - Monaco and the Ring excluded). I would say that once you decide > on the overall stiffness the rest somewhat fits in automatically, > depending on your driving style. These are not hotlap setups, mind you, > as I do not like hotlapping all that much, but setups for consistent > race driving. > > So once you have a setup that has the turn-in, drift and power out > characteristics that match your driving style, you can take the same > setup to any other ('normal') track and have competitive lap times > there. Of course the times might be slightly better if you adjust the > setups a bit, but one setup can be good enough on most tracks -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

I thought it appropriate to put my observations here. Namely, after developing setups for different tracks in GPL for quite some time now, what I've found out is that the final results are really not very much different from track to track (well, at least considering the 'normal' tracks - Monaco and the Ring excluded). I would say that once you decide on the overall stiffness the rest somewhat fits in automatically, depending on your driving style. These are not hotlap setups, mind you, as I do not like hotlapping all that much, but setups for consistent race driving. So once you have a setup that has the turn-in, drift and power out characteristics that match your driving style, you can take the same setup to any other ('normal') track and have competitive lap times there. Of course the times might be slightly better if you adjust the setups a bit, but one setup can be good enough on most tracks. In modern F1 the extesive setup tinkering is necessary due to the strong interaction between the downforce, that has to be adjusted from race to race, and the spring stiffness with bump stops to secure the minimal ride height, which in turn strongly affects the low speed handling. Anyone who played GP2, F1RS or MGPRS will know what I mean. But in the pre-aero era all setup changes, although interconnected, were still fairly independent in their effect, and more importantly, not as much speed sensitive. That's why setup changes are not strictly necessary from track to track. Richard G Clegg wrote:

Quoted text (29 lines)

> > artijn <[email hidden]> wrote: > > : Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> schreef in artikel > : <[email hidden]>... > :> :-) > :> I don't consider changing a set of pads as "tweaking", Ron!! > :> > :> It was said, when he (Clark) raced here in his last Tasman series, that > : his > :> car was not "tweaked" from the time it arrived to the time it left. (I > :> think they mean that it carried the same basic settings throughout the > :> series). > :> If true then that is certainly an indication of the brilliance of the > : bloke. > > : You think so? I dunno, perhaps it also indicates his total lack of > : understanding of what a setup can do for the car? > > Yes... there was a long thread about this on > rec.autos.sports.f1.moderated. Some people took it as a sign of his > brilliance I took it as a significant weakness in his abilities. After > all, you're nowhere in modern F1 if you can't do set-up. > > -- > Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving > Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group > Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York > www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

I think, Martin, that you are attempting to relate "How to Set Up Your 1999 F1 Williams" with "How To Set Up Your 1967 Lotus"! For a start, the current manual would fill several volumes whereas the 1967 edition might take up all the pages in a small notepad! -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- > > :-) > > I don't consider changing a set of pads as "tweaking", Ron!! > > It was said, when he (Clark) raced here in his last Tasman series, that > his > > car was not "tweaked" from the time it arrived to the time it left. (I > > think they mean that it carried the same basic settings throughout the > > series). > > If true then that is certainly an indication of the brilliance of the > bloke. > You think so? I dunno, perhaps it also indicates his total lack of > understanding of what a setup can do for the car? -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

That's interesting, because down here that advert was for the man-in-a-Whitmont-shirt! -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- > I put the "man-in-hathaway-shirt" eye-patch on, and promptly crashed out of > the race. Realism, be damned!! > --DK > > : I'm curious. > > : How many of you are using historically realistic (or as close as the sim > > : will allow) ... settings? > > Well, I have been known to put on a set of pristine white coveralls and > > style my hair with Brylcreem before stepping up to the computer... :-) > > Stephen > > p.s. yes, I shamelessly edited out part of your question. -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

You are correct in the matter of the "same settings all season", Richard. ANother aspect is gearbox ratios......one has to remember that in the early days of transaxles the ability to simply swap clusters didn't exists: if one wanted a change of ratios, it was a matter of bolting in a different gearbox!! Obviously not too many teams carried dozens of 'boxes from circuit to circuit! One fact that appears to escape some people is that the norm was to NOT fiddle with settings from track-to-track.....but some readers are equating "setting up" back then with what goes on now........it's trying to compare apples and oranges. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- > :> It was only ever "tweaked" twice during the season and one of those > :> tweaks was reversed. > : Actually, both were reversed, according to Mr. Oliver :-) > : But he was talking about the changes made by the driver. The team (probably > : Mr. Chapman) adapted ride height, spring rates etc. for each track. > Are you sure about that? The impression given by an article I read > (I think in F1 racing so no guarantee of quality or accuracy there) was > that Clark kept the same spring settings all season - which seemed > like idiocy to me.... but that was the impression given by the article > that he used the same set ups all the time. > : Graham Hill on the other hand changed a lot of settings AND kept meticulous > : records of all values. Now if we could just have a look in that book... > Actually, I think that Chapman said that he just drove around > ***ing around moving the ride hide up and down until he "just" wasn't > touching the bump ***s on the corners. It annoyed the hell out of > his mechanics apparently. > -- > Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving > Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group > Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York > www: [link lost in import] -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

See....you are doing the same thing....comparing then with now. Doesn't work! Answer me this.....if Hill was constantly fiddling with ride heights and camber angles, yet Clark simply got in the car (any car) and drove over everyone else, why didn't Hill win more often than Clark? -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- > :> :-) > :> I don't consider changing a set of pads as "tweaking", Ron!! > :> > :> It was said, when he (Clark) raced here in his last Tasman series, that > : his > :> car was not "tweaked" from the time it arrived to the time it left. (I > :> think they mean that it carried the same basic settings throughout the > :> series). > :> If true then that is certainly an indication of the brilliance of the > : bloke. > : You think so? I dunno, perhaps it also indicates his total lack of > : understanding of what a setup can do for the car? > Yes... there was a long thread about this on > rec.autos.sports.f1.moderated. Some people took it as a sign of his > brilliance I took it as a significant weakness in his abilities. After > all, you're nowhere in modern F1 if you can't do set-up. > -- > Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving > Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group > Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York > www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

Bruce, I have no idea. I'll see if I can find a way of establishing contact. Bye, Leo

David Karr <[email hidden]> wrote: : And of course, we're all in agreement that during his (too-short) career, : Mr. Clark was indeed simply "nowhere." I said in MODERN F1. Clark could get away with not doing set-up back in the 60s. I would not work today. Further I would contend that he'd have been faster still if he had learned how to set up a car. (However, it does seem these days to be heresy to suggest that Jimmy Clark wasn't absolutely perfect all the time at all tracks and with all aspects of any racing vehicle) : "Richard G Clegg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message : news:890vga$lmq$[email hidden] : [snip] :>Some people took it as a sign of his :>brilliance I took it as a significant weakness in his abilities. After :>all, you're nowhere in modern F1 if you can't do set-up. -- Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

Richard G Clegg wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > David Karr <[email hidden]> wrote: > : And of course, we're all in agreement that during his (too-short) career, > : Mr. Clark was indeed simply "nowhere." > > I said in MODERN F1. Clark could get away with not doing set-up back > in the 60s. I would not work today. Further I would contend that he'd > have been faster still if he had learned how to set up a car. >

Actually, that is true in almost all technical sports. The latest example I can think of is skiing. This year a new type of skis was introduced that is known to recreational skiers for quite a few years now (the carving skis that have a more pronounced concave side curve). While most skiers adapted to the new technique, some previously excellent skiers are struggling now and a few new talents really started to shine. One cannot say what Clark would have done in current F1, but I still think he would do well. F1 drivers do not need to know all the details of setting up a car (when did you last see an of the Schumacher brothers with a wrench?). What is more important is that they are able to communicate well with their racing engineer about what the car is doing in various phases (i.e. under/oversteer in slow/fast corners, corner entry and exit, ride over bumps etc.). Of course it is better if the driver knows exactly which component is causing problems, but that can be determined from both telemetry and personal communication. From his ability to feel the balance the car, I believe Clark could tell the engineers what was wrong with the car better than many others. It would then be the job of the engineers to set the car up accordingly.

Quoted text (11 lines)

> (However, it does seem these days to be heresy to suggest that Jimmy > Clark wasn't absolutely perfect all the time at all tracks and with > all aspects of any racing vehicle) > > : "Richard G Clegg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > : news:890vga$lmq$[email hidden] > > : [snip] > :>Some people took it as a sign of his > :>brilliance I took it as a significant weakness in his abilities. After > :>all, you're nowhere in modern F1 if you can't do set-up.

But that's precisely the *point*! You write that you took the lack of attention to setup as an indication of Clark's basic weakness in that area. That's like writing that a pole-vaulter circa 1906 who didn't spend 7 hrs/per day at an athletico/medico facility wasn't paying proper regard for his/her conditioning. It wasn't on the plate back then, so it's really not a valid point of comparison. So too, Clark's "abilities." It's not that he didn't pay proper attention--rather, the very nature of what defined proper "attention" was simply different back then. By the way, if you look at some of the online race reports from 1967, you will see lots of, often vague, discussion about "getting the car right." Often, it seems, this was done *between* races rather than at the track--but even in the practice sessions you'll see talk about changing diffs., and yes, gearboxes. Finally, I think it's quite fine to say that Clark wasn't god, wasn't perfect, etc. He was before my time, and I haven't got a whole lot invested there. I just didn't get the logic of your critique. Finally, finally, I'll agree with anyone that says this thread is getting persnickety. Indeed, I've just done some persnicketing myself. cheers, DK "Richard G Clegg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8937en$ad7$[email hidden]... > David Karr <[email hidden]> wrote: > : And of course, we're all in agreement that during his (too-short)career,

Quoted text (26 lines)

> : Mr. Clark was indeed simply "nowhere." > > I said in MODERN F1. Clark could get away with not doing set-up back > in the 60s. I would not work today. Further I would contend that he'd > have been faster still if he had learned how to set up a car. > > (However, it does seem these days to be heresy to suggest that Jimmy > Clark wasn't absolutely perfect all the time at all tracks and with > all aspects of any racing vehicle) > > : "Richard G Clegg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > : news:890vga$lmq$[email hidden] > > : [snip] > :>Some people took it as a sign of his > :>brilliance I took it as a significant weakness in his abilities. After > :>all, you're nowhere in modern F1 if you can't do set-up. > > > > > -- > Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving > Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group > Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York > www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

David Karr <[email hidden]> wrote: : But that's precisely the *point*! You write that you took the lack of : attention to setup as an indication of Clark's basic weakness in that area. : That's like writing that a pole-vaulter circa 1906 who didn't spend 7 : hrs/per day at an athletico/medico facility wasn't paying proper regard for : his/her conditioning. It wasn't on the plate back then, so it's really not : a valid point of comparison. So too, Clark's "abilities." It's not that he : didn't pay proper attention--rather, the very nature of what defined proper : "attention" was simply different back then. Not at all. Clark's lack of attention to set up was clearly unusual even then. That's why his mechanics commented on it and why it is continually wheeled out as another remarkable thing about him as a driver. By contrast Hill spent a fair time tweaking ride-heights. : Finally, I think it's quite fine to say that Clark wasn't god, wasn't : perfect, etc. He was before my time, and I haven't got a whole lot invested : there. I just didn't get the logic of your critique. The logic is that if we believe reports of the time, Clark used essentially the same set up from track to track (nobody has told me that this is wrong anyway and mechanics talking about the time strongly imply this is the case). Some people choose to see this as a strength of Clark the driver - "he was so good he didn't need to do set up" - I see it as a weakness of Clark - "he was so good he could drive around the wrong set up but he would have been _better_ if he could have got the right set up" -- Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

No....it's certainly not heresy, Richard. Even some of his peers have since stated that as good as he was, the sun didn't shine out of his bum either. He had faults, the same as everyone else. But what I think you might be missing is that Clark had the rare ability to get into ANYTHING and drive it like you wouldn't believe and there are innumerable reports of the day to support that statement. Not every driver had, or has, that skill; to wring the best from whatever has an engine and four wheels. Even Fangio was less than brilliant in anything with enclosed wheels.....even he stated that. He needed to be able to see the front wheels and he needed to be central in the car to produce his best. Then there is the ENORMOUS difference between setting up a car today and setting up a car then. That in itself means that comparisons with then and now are irrelevant. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Richard G Clegg <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8937en$ad7$[email hidden]... > David Karr <[email hidden]> wrote: > : And of course, we're all in agreement that during his (too-short) career, > : Mr. Clark was indeed simply "nowhere." > > I said in MODERN F1. Clark could get away with not doing set-up back > in the 60s. I would not work today. Further I would contend that he'd > have been faster still if he had learned how to set up a car. > > (However, it does seem these days to be heresy to suggest that Jimmy > Clark wasn't absolutely perfect all the time at all tracks and with > all aspects of any racing vehicle) -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

(snip) From his ability to feel the balance the car, I believe Clark could tell the engineers what was wrong with the car better than many others. It would then be the job of the engineers to set the car up accordingly. ===================================== Within the bounds of the technology available at the time. In some instances the driver would simply come in and say that the "back feels soft" or "it's bottoming going over the Ledger crossing" and the mechanic (the only "engineers" were thos with degrees and they were few and far between in the motor racing pits in 1967!) would weild his trusty wrench. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

Bruce Kennewell wrote:

Quoted text (22 lines)

> > (snip) > From his ability to feel the balance the car, I believe Clark could tell > the engineers what was wrong with the car better than many others. It > would then be the job of the engineers to set the car up accordingly. > > ===================================== > > Within the bounds of the technology available at the time. In some > instances the driver would simply come in and say that the "back feels soft" > or "it's bottoming going over the Ledger crossing" and the mechanic (the > only "engineers" were thos with degrees and they were few and far between in > the motor racing pits in 1967!) would weild his trusty wrench. > > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > > -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- > http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! > ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----

Please, do not snip too much :). I was refering to what Clark might have done if he were in the modern F1, not 1967. He was the perfect sort of driver for the cars of that era, no doubt about that. The question was whether his lack of engineering knowledge would affect his abilities if he was put in a modern F1 car. My point was, yes, perhaps, but not to the degree some people claimed it would. Although we have to take care of the car setup in our sims, the real world drivers really don't need to, they just have to be able to find the fault in the handling and report it correctly to their engineer, who should then be able to work it out with his knowledge and possible use of telemetry.

Well, I wasn't around <g>. There's 2 answers: 1) Clark was notorious with his mechanics for 'driving around' a problem. If they noticed his laptimes were slowing down, they called him in immediately or he would speed up again and they would never know what was wrong. So yes, maybe he didn't have to know much about set-ups. 2) I remember from one of the books on Clark that he said something to the effect of 'you can't overestimate the importance of the right bump ***s'. Now that doesn't sound like the remark of an ignorant man. But like I said, I wasn't there, so I could be wrong. And please don't ask me to look up that specific quote... Bye, Leo

: I fail to see the logic in this argument. : The definition of a great driver is one who can jump in to ANY car and blast : round in a faster time than anyone else, lap after lap after lap... : Setting up your car properly does not make you a great driver. It only : makes your car faster. My definition of a great driver is certainly one who can get into a car and get around faster than anyone else. That includes the ability to set the car up properly and gain maximum performance from that car. Especially in modern motor racing (particularly higher formulae). Setting your car up propoerly does not make you a great driver I agree. But, today, inability to set your car up does make you a poor driver. : Putting all drivers in identical machinery is the true test of a drivers : ability. It's one test of a major part of their ability. Their ability to develop a car is certainly another part. I would argue that a _complete_ driver is one who can aid with development, design and set up and, having done that, get out there and drive around faster than anyone else. -- Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html