Ok now THIS is weird!

To wit - comparing my times at Monza in GPL (stock) and N2K3 (Noonan conversion). I find that I am 1.5 seconds faster, but not in the sim you might think....my GPL Monza time to date is 1:32.728, and in N2K3 it's 1:30.200. That's about 1.5 seconds difference there... I'd have thought I'd be faster in GPL and not N2K3. I had not run the track in N2K3 before either, but obviously knew how to drive the track though my GPL experience. But I'm still puzzled as to how I am faster on that track in a stock car rather then an open wheeler. Things that make you go "hmmm....."

"DJSpeedy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:aVukd.143487$[email hidden]... > To wit - comparing my times at Monza in GPL (stock) and N2K3 (Noonan > conversion). I find that I am 1.5 seconds faster, but not in the sim you > might think....my GPL Monza time to date is 1:32.728, and in N2K3 it's > 1:30.200. That's about 1.5 seconds difference there... > > I'd have thought I'd be faster in GPL and not N2K3. I had not run thetrack

Quoted text (7 lines)

> in N2K3 before either, but obviously knew how to drive the track though my > GPL experience. > > But I'm still puzzled as to how I am faster on that track in a stock car > rather then an open wheeler. > > Things that make you go "hmmm....."

Um .. .. .. 35 years, or so, of autotech advances , downforce, etc. Elrikk

Maybe N2K3's track isn't exactly to proper scale? "DJSpeedy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:aVukd.143487$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> To wit - comparing my times at Monza in GPL (stock) and N2K3 (Noonan > conversion). I find that I am 1.5 seconds faster, but not in the sim you > might think....my GPL Monza time to date is 1:32.728, and in N2K3 it's > 1:30.200. That's about 1.5 seconds difference there... > > I'd have thought I'd be faster in GPL and not N2K3. I had not run the > track > in N2K3 before either, but obviously knew how to drive the track though my > GPL experience. > > But I'm still puzzled as to how I am faster on that track in a stock car > rather then an open wheeler. > > Things that make you go "hmmm....." > > >

Hmm exactly, that's 2.5 seconds difference, even quicker/slower than you thought. Andi. -- Remove only one zero to reply "DJSpeedy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:aVukd.143487$[email hidden]... > To wit - comparing my times at Monza in GPL (stock) and N2K3 (Noonan > conversion). I find that I am 1.5 seconds faster, but not in the sim you > might think....my GPL Monza time to date is 1:32.728, and in N2K3 it's > 1:30.200. That's about 1.5 seconds difference there... > > I'd have thought I'd be faster in GPL and not N2K3. I had not run the track > in N2K3 before either, but obviously knew how to drive the track though my > GPL experience. > > But I'm still puzzled as to how I am faster on that track in a stock car > rather then an open wheeler. > > Things that make you go "hmmm....." > > >

Quoted text (10 lines)

> might think....my GPL Monza time to date is 1:32.728, and in N2K3 it's > 1:30.200. That's about 1.5 seconds difference there... > > I'd have thought I'd be faster in GPL and not N2K3. I had not run the > track > in N2K3 before either, but obviously knew how to drive the track though my > GPL experience. > > But I'm still puzzled as to how I am faster on that track in a stock car > rather then an open wheeler.

Try this for an experiment... Get a GPL version of Indianapolis Motor Speedway... The times will probably be in the 1:00 minute area for a 1967 GP car.. A good time in N 2003's version of the Brickyard (included in the game... not a converted version) will be in the low .50 sec range. I think that's just the increase in raw horsepower. Timmy

"DJSpeedy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:aVukd.143487$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> To wit - comparing my times at Monza in GPL (stock) and N2K3 (Noonan > conversion). I find that I am 1.5 seconds faster, but not in the sim you > might think....my GPL Monza time to date is 1:32.728, and in N2K3 it's > 1:30.200. That's about 1.5 seconds difference there... > > I'd have thought I'd be faster in GPL and not N2K3. I had not run the > track > in N2K3 before either, but obviously knew how to drive the track though my > GPL experience. > > But I'm still puzzled as to how I am faster on that track in a stock car > rather then an open wheeler. > > Things that make you go "hmmm....." >

roughly 400+ horsepower, no wings and hard compound treaded cross-ply tyres versus 700+ horsepower,downforce and soft compound slick tyres steve

Steve Whitty <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:xQwkd.31648$[email hidden]... > > "DJSpeedy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:aVukd.143487$[email hidden]... > > To wit - comparing my times at Monza in GPL (stock) and N2K3 (Noonan > > conversion). I find that I am 1.5 seconds faster, but not in the simyou > > might think....my GPL Monza time to date is 1:32.728, and in N2K3 it's > > 1:30.200. That's about 1.5 seconds difference there... > > > > I'd have thought I'd be faster in GPL and not N2K3. I had not run the > > track > > in N2K3 before either, but obviously knew how to drive the track thoughmy

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > GPL experience. > > > > But I'm still puzzled as to how I am faster on that track in a stock car > > rather then an open wheeler. > > > > Things that make you go "hmmm....." > > > > roughly 400+ horsepower, no wings and hard compound treaded cross-ply

tyres > versus 700+ horsepower,downforce and soft compound slick tyres > > steve > > Yes, but the power/weight ratio about equals out hp differences. I'd go with Mike's idea; track creation differences. After all, it isn't real asphalt we're talking about here <g>

Not at all weird really. Twice as much HP, much better rubber, some downforce as opposed to almost none in 67 F1...and 35+ years of technical advances in brakes, etc... "DJSpeedy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:aVukd.143487$[email hidden]... > To wit - comparing my times at Monza in GPL (stock) and N2K3 (Noonan > conversion). I find that I am 1.5 seconds faster, but not in the sim you > might think....my GPL Monza time to date is 1:32.728, and in N2K3 it's > 1:30.200. That's about 1.5 seconds difference there... > > I'd have thought I'd be faster in GPL and not N2K3. I had not run thetrack

Quoted text (10 lines)

> in N2K3 before either, but obviously knew how to drive the track though my > GPL experience. > > But I'm still puzzled as to how I am faster on that track in a stock car > rather then an open wheeler. > > Things that make you go "hmmm....." > > >

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 16:09:18 -0500, "Mike Beauchamp" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Maybe N2K3's track isn't exactly to proper scale? > > Should be the exact same scale, since it is just the GPL version converted to NR. Now someone told me recently that the cars in NR had been scaled up just a tad, and the new GTP mod will have more realistically-sized cars...

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 21:37:53 GMT, "Timmy Ferrell" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (18 lines)

>> might think....my GPL Monza time to date is 1:32.728, and in N2K3 it's >> 1:30.200. That's about 1.5 seconds difference there... >> >> I'd have thought I'd be faster in GPL and not N2K3. I had not run the >> track >> in N2K3 before either, but obviously knew how to drive the track though my >> GPL experience. >> >> But I'm still puzzled as to how I am faster on that track in a stock car >> rather then an open wheeler. >Try this for an experiment... >Get a GPL version of Indianapolis Motor Speedway... >The times will probably be in the 1:00 minute area for a 1967 GP car.. >A good time in N 2003's version of the Brickyard (included in the game... >not a converted version) will be in the low .50 sec range. >I think that's just the increase in raw horsepower. >Timmy >

A good time at Indy '67 in a GPL car is around 53 seconds...

"Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:dYykd.5508$[email hidden]: > Not at all weird really. > > Twice as much HP, much better rubber, some downforce as opposed to > almost none in 67 F1...and 35+ years of technical advances in brakes, > etc... ... and only 1.5 seconds of difference. Though in modern F1 they seem to manage to pull out 1.5 seconds every year out of nowhere ;) Alex.

alexti <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> "Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:dYykd.5508$[email hidden]: > > > Not at all weird really. > > > > Twice as much HP, much better rubber, some downforce as opposed to > > almost none in 67 F1...and 35+ years of technical advances in brakes, > > etc... > ... and only 1.5 seconds of difference. > > Though in modern F1 they seem to manage to pull out 1.5 seconds every year > out of nowhere ;) > > Alex.

Hehe, thinking the same thing; 35 years of tech, etc., only results in a 1.5 sec increase ? I don't think thats the answer <g>

"JP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:XTBkd.108$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > alexti <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > "Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in > > news:dYykd.5508$[email hidden]: > > > > > Not at all weird really. > > > > > > Twice as much HP, much better rubber, some downforce as opposed to > > > almost none in 67 F1...and 35+ years of technical advances in brakes, > > > etc... > > ... and only 1.5 seconds of difference. > > > > Though in modern F1 they seem to manage to pull out 1.5 seconds every

year

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > out of nowhere ;) > > > > Alex. > > > > Hehe, thinking the same thing; 35 years of tech, etc., only results in a > 1.5 sec increase ? I don't think thats the answer <g> > > >

If you read back the OP was actually off by a whole second, he must have been using that new math.. ;)

Biz <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7mCkd.6058$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > "JP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:XTBkd.108$[email hidden]... > > > > alexti <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > "Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in > > > news:dYykd.5508$[email hidden]: > > > > > > > Not at all weird really. > > > > > > > > Twice as much HP, much better rubber, some downforce as opposed to > > > > almost none in 67 F1...and 35+ years of technical advances in

brakes,

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > > > etc... > > > ... and only 1.5 seconds of difference. > > > > > > Though in modern F1 they seem to manage to pull out 1.5 seconds every > year > > > out of nowhere ;) > > > > > > Alex. > > > > > > > > Hehe, thinking the same thing; 35 years of tech, etc., only results in

a

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > 1.5 sec increase ? I don't think thats the answer <g> > > > > > > > > If you read back the OP was actually off by a whole second, he must have > been using that new math.. ;)

Yep, you're right; 2.5. Still not much of an increase re 35 years of tech, etc., imo. > > > >

We're talking about completely different technology paths though. If you want to compare, it would have to be 67 F1, vs 04 F1, or 67 Winston Cup vs 04 Nextel Cup cars....this comnparison is apple to oranges, even if they are 35 years apart... I'm sure you know that 3400lb cup cars with carburated engines, etc...not that high tech Truthfully, I'm surprised WC cars are actually faster, to me it seems about right. Anyone remember the times Gordon's cup car got around Indy when they had that Willaims vs Dupont thing last year? "JP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:7ACkd.112$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> > Biz <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:7mCkd.6058$[email hidden]... > > > > "JP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:XTBkd.108$[email hidden]... > > > > > > alexti <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > "Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in > > > > news:dYykd.5508$[email hidden]: > > > > > > > > > Not at all weird really. > > > > > > > > > > Twice as much HP, much better rubber, some downforce as opposed to > > > > > almost none in 67 F1...and 35+ years of technical advances in > brakes, > > > > > etc... > > > > ... and only 1.5 seconds of difference. > > > > > > > > Though in modern F1 they seem to manage to pull out 1.5 seconds

every

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > year > > > > out of nowhere ;) > > > > > > > > Alex. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hehe, thinking the same thing; 35 years of tech, etc., only results

in

Quoted text (20 lines)

> a > > > 1.5 sec increase ? I don't think thats the answer <g> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you read back the OP was actually off by a whole second, he must have > > been using that new math.. ;) > > > Yep, you're right; 2.5. Still not much of an increase re 35 years of > tech, etc., imo. > > > > > > > > > > > >

"Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:mHEkd.6420$[email hidden]: > > Truthfully, I'm surprised WC cars are actually faster, to me it seems > about right. Anyone remember the times Gordon's cup car got around > Indy when they had that Willaims vs Dupont thing last year? > Several seconds slower if I recall. I also vaguely remember a magazine article in something like Road & Track that compared a GTP Imsa car, possibly a Porche 962 vs a WC car, the WC was much more aerodynamic and posted a faster speed on the SS oval. Of course the magazine did NOT then compare the two on a road course. ;> dave henrie

That's true, but 35 years is 35 years, no matter what you're talking about, and with something as techy as even passenger autos, that's a loooong time <g> With the very small difference in time of the OP's tests, I just find it hard to believe it is anything but track modeling, etc., is all. Biz <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:mHEkd.6420$[email hidden]... > We're talking about completely different technology paths though. If you > want to compare, it would have to be 67 F1, vs 04 F1, or 67 Winston Cup vs > 04 Nextel Cup cars....this comnparison is apple to oranges, even if theyare > 35 years apart... > > I'm sure you know that 3400lb cup cars with carburated engines, etc...not > that high tech > > Truthfully, I'm surprised WC cars are actually faster, to me it seemsabout > right. Anyone remember the times Gordon's cup car got around Indy whenthey

Quoted text (19 lines)

> had that Willaims vs Dupont thing last year? > > "JP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:7ACkd.112$[email hidden]... > > > > Biz <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:7mCkd.6058$[email hidden]... > > > > > > "JP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:XTBkd.108$[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > alexti <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > "Biz" <[email hidden]> wrote in > > > > > news:dYykd.5508$[email hidden]: > > > > > > > > > > > Not at all weird really. > > > > > > > > > > > > Twice as much HP, much better rubber, some downforce as opposed

to

Quoted text (23 lines)

> > > > > > almost none in 67 F1...and 35+ years of technical advances in > > brakes, > > > > > > etc... > > > > > ... and only 1.5 seconds of difference. > > > > > > > > > > Though in modern F1 they seem to manage to pull out 1.5 seconds > every > > > year > > > > > out of nowhere ;) > > > > > > > > > > Alex. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hehe, thinking the same thing; 35 years of tech, etc., only results > in > > a > > > > 1.5 sec increase ? I don't think thats the answer <g> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you read back the OP was actually off by a whole second, he must

have

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > > been using that new math.. ;) > > > > > > Yep, you're right; 2.5. Still not much of an increase re 35 years of > > tech, etc., imo. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

True fact: '67 F1 cars were about as fast around any given circuit as '67 Indy cars (Andretti was on the Indy 500 pole @ 169 mph, but Brands Hatch is where the comparisons are telling), despite the latter having a 50% bigger alcohol-burning engine and the former being several hundred pounds lighter. Moreover, the fastest sports cars of the era (Ford, Ferrari, Chaparral) were also in the same range (again, the comparison at Brands tells), Even curiouser, latter-day Cup cars are about as fast around any given circuit as the '67 bolides, thanks to superior aero and rubber, and despite having an inferior power-to-weight ratio. Perhaps that's why Papy sims--and their mode--work so well in similar laptime environments. "John DiFool" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 21:37:53 GMT, "Timmy Ferrell" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >> might think....my GPL Monza time to date is 1:32.728, and in N2K3 it's > >> 1:30.200. That's about 1.5 seconds difference there... > >> > >> I'd have thought I'd be faster in GPL and not N2K3. I had not run the > >> track > >> in N2K3 before either, but obviously knew how to drive the track though

my > >> GPL experience. > >> > >> But I'm still puzzled as to how I am faster on that track in a stockcar

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >> rather then an open wheeler. > >Try this for an experiment... > >Get a GPL version of Indianapolis Motor Speedway... > >The times will probably be in the 1:00 minute area for a 1967 GP car.. > >A good time in N 2003's version of the Brickyard (included in the game... > >not a converted version) will be in the low .50 sec range. > >I think that's just the increase in raw horsepower. > >Timmy > > > > A good time at Indy '67 in a GPL car is around 53 seconds... >

>>The times will probably be in the 1:00 minute area for a 1967 GP car.. >>A good time in N 2003's version of the Brickyard (included in the game... >>not a converted version) will be in the low .50 sec range. > A good time at Indy '67 in a GPL car is around 53 seconds...Keep in mind my GPL Handicap is is about +65... 1.00 Minute for me IS a good time.... Timmy

> Truthfully, I'm surprised WC cars are actually faster, to me it seems > about > right. Anyone remember the times Gordon's cup car got around Indy when > they > had that Willaims vs Dupont thing last year?I don't remember if the made more than a passing comparsion between the Cup vs. F1 car on the Indy Roadcourse. I mainly remember comparing Gordon and Montoya's time running the same car. They were of course faster in their respective rides. Gordon actually surprised some by his performance in Montoya's ride- he was only about 1 sec to 1.5 sec. slower than Montoya in the F1 car. It seems the point was made if he had started the previous years' F1 USGP he would've started about 10th or 12th.