N2003 Buggy POS Arcade Game

@*$#% **#$%% #**&# game. David G Fisher

Now tell us how you really feel.. <g> "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > @*$#% **#$%% #**&# game. > > David G Fisher > >

David G Fisher wrote: > @*$#% **#$%% #**&# game. > > David G Fisher > > What happened? :) Achim

Quoted text (10 lines)

> David G Fisher wrote: > > @*$#% **#$%% #**&# game. > > > > David G Fisher > > > > > > What happened? :) > > Achim

Do you thinks he's a slightly upset? :) Steve

David G Fisher wrote: > @*$#% **#$%% #**&# game. > > David G Fisher > > What happened? :) Achim ----------------------------- He had a few screen lock ups while leading our Sebring race. I think he was quite far in the lead too. Dave being the only one that could drive that setup. I never hit 6th gear during the whole practice and race. No offense Joachim, but that was bad. ZZ -- Richard "ZZ" Busch Member: Screamers Racing League OAO CORS MARA TransAm RASCAR GPL Rank + 17.415 MoGPL Rank + 318.586 N2002 Rank + 7.695 TransAm Rank ??

ZZ wrote: > No offense Joachim, but that was bad. None taken, but I didn't see any complaints from those who tested it before the race, so what makes you say Dave was the _only_ one who could drive it? What was your prob with it? Regarding the gears, I'd noticed in my tests before uploading the setup that I was faster with these longer gear ratios than with shorter ones. That, plus the goal to have some margin for drafting, made me chose these ratios. That 1:55.901 I uploaded today was done with that setup btw, the only difference being tape = 70, and I started with only 10 laps worth of fuel. Achim

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 13:24:58 GMT, "ZZ" <[email hidden]> wrote: >He had a few screen lock ups while leading our Sebring race. I think he was >quite far in the lead too. >Dave being the only one that could drive that setup. I never hit 6th gear >during the whole practice and race. >No offense Joachim, but that was bad. Fixed-setups on road courses is a stupid idea. On ovals it makes sense, on road courses it is utterly ridiculous. Jason

That is undoubtedly a very fast setup in the right hands, but a lot of us didn't have the right hands. ;o) Seriously, if you don't mind a little constructive criticism, it was well suited to aliens but not well suited to less experienced drivers. Speaking as a less experienced driver I had a great deal of difficulty with directional control, and with sudden changes from understeer to oversteer. It appears like what you did was take a typical GPL style alien setup and make it somewhat more controllable by increasing the front damping. The problem is that this only makes the car stable by causing understeer during pitch and roll events, under any other conditions it is still a bit loose. Also the setup allowed way too much roll, making directional changes very difficult. For a while I was practicing with my own variant of your setup, where among other things I put on a much bigger front bar and adjusted the damping to 5/4 front and 4/3 rear (rebound/bump). Very similar to setups I have used in F1C and GTR. This was much easier to drive, but was hell on the right front tire. Honestly I think there is a serious flaw in the TA physics. It seems that anything you do to give the car adequate roll control (bigger springs, bigger bars) will eat the right front tire. The only way to control tire wear is to use wimpy springs and bars. This allows huge suspension deflections which are totally unrealistic for these types of cars. So I can see how you ended up with that setup and it makes sense from a performance and tire wear standpoint, but it gives a huge advantage to the aliens who are used to driving that type of setup. I still find the PWF expert setups for TA to be the easiest to drive. They usually have a much bigger front bar than rear and more balanced damping. The bigger front bar makes the car inherently stable, and the more balanced damping allows you to lean on the car pretty heavily without pushing. Usually they are not so bad for tire wear. Unfortunately the LeBlanc setup for this track really felt a lot different than the typical PWF setup and most people found it undrivable also. Not sure what the magic setup is for this track. I really like the track but I would like to think there is some way of setting up a drivable car that is not hell on the tires. Tire wear is bad at the real life track from what I have heard, but I don't think it is as bad as we experienced in the race. Again I question the TA physics. I still think the Papy tire model is really not right for these cars, and the high CG complicates things even further by making the car pitch and roll excessively. I wonder if they plan on addressing this at all or if we are just going to have to live with it. Granted it's a fantasy series, but one would hope it would at least be similar to real life series like SCCA Trans-Am, V8 Supercars, or DTM, and I honestly think it is not even remotely like any of them. "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bv0ngc$mf2ri$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> ZZ wrote: > > > No offense Joachim, but that was bad. > > None taken, but I didn't see any complaints from those who tested it > before the race, so what makes you say Dave was the _only_ one who could > drive it? What was your prob with it? > > Regarding the gears, I'd noticed in my tests before uploading the setup > that I was faster with these longer gear ratios than with shorter ones. > That, plus the goal to have some margin for drafting, made me chose > these ratios. > > That 1:55.901 I uploaded today was done with that setup btw, the only > difference being tape = 70, and I started with only 10 laps worth of fuel. > > Achim

"Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bv0ngc$mf2ri$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> ZZ wrote: > > > No offense Joachim, but that was bad. > > None taken, but I didn't see any complaints from those who tested it > before the race, so what makes you say Dave was the _only_ one who could > drive it? What was your prob with it? > > Regarding the gears, I'd noticed in my tests before uploading the setup > that I was faster with these longer gear ratios than with shorter ones. > That, plus the goal to have some margin for drafting, made me chose > these ratios. > > That 1:55.901 I uploaded today was done with that setup btw, the only > difference being tape = 70, and I started with only 10 laps worth of fuel. > > Achim

FWIW; a view from someone not in the series (would like to do some but am seldom home when they're run). I tried the setup when it was first mentioned here the other day. With a look at the telemetry from Achim's 1:56 and few more laps of my own to learn Sebring could run consistent 59's with it. Nothing wrong with that setup imho. Plus, I've grown to really like Sebring. I think the high frequency bumps combine nicely with the high PTA grip levels to make for an interesting drive. Heck, I'd like to see even more pronounced ripples on corner entrys and exits. That's where you see them in real life. But something perhaps worth considering: quick setups like that might best be tweaked a touch more for forgiveness, considering the range of drivers in the series. A click more front brake bias, a click off the rear ARB maybe; that sort of thing. Minimal changes at most. While it would indeed take the edge off for the quicker guys, the rest would find it more manageable, and it might make for less incidents, a tighter grid and ultimately closer competition over race distance. SB

"Joachim Trensz" wrote... > ZZ wrote: > > > No offense Joachim, but that was bad. > > None taken, but I didn't see any complaints from those > who tested it before the race, I said it was better than the Leblanc one, I didn't say it was good. <g> Big cop-out, I know, but there just wasn't time for me to come up with of look for anything I would consider better. > so what makes you say Dave was the _only_ one who could > drive it? What was your prob with it? Most of the fast guys got along with it, it would appear. Even in my hands and alone on the track, it wasn't an insurmountable problem. It just didn't provide the kind of handling I'd expect from a car like that and thus I wasn't able to use the road the way I wanted to (which showed up on the clock, obviously), but the biggest problem was it's a pig in traffic. It's bad enough to have to have the back end jack down and jump out from under you while accellerating along the two curved "straights", it's another proposition altogether if you have to arrange a let bye *AND* drive with one hand to signal the following driver to pass as well. Also, following a little incident I had more wear on the left front than on the other tyres and that really unbalanced it. Gave me all kinds of grief after that (had to nurse it for 10 laps like that >:-( ). All of the above made for a foul mood at the end of the race and following (corrected) quote: "He may be the setup wizard to Neil, but IMO Joachim's setups are of the Nilfisk variety."(*) > Regarding the gears, I'd noticed in my tests before > uploading the setup that I was faster with these longer > gear ratios than with shorter ones. It doesn't matter if it's faster or not in fixed setup racing. Also, I want throttle controllable wheelspin in *BOTH* 1st and 2nd. > That, plus the goal to have some margin for drafting, > made me chose these ratios. > > That 1:55.901 I uploaded today was done with that setup > btw, the only difference being tape = 70, and I started > with only 10 laps worth of fuel. Again: what the setup is capable of in "hotlapping mode" is of no importance. Especially if this sort of performance is only acchievable by those who can adapt to this particular style of driving. Jan. =--- (*) Rem., for the non-Europeans on RAS: Nilfisk is a brand of vacuum cleaners, work it out for yourselves...

Funny part was after I lost my gears I went offline and ran some laps with Leblanc70 setup and it didnt feel all that diff from Achims. Go figure. Mitch "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > That is undoubtedly a very fast setup in the right hands, but a lot of us > didn't have the right hands. ;o) > > Seriously, if you don't mind a little constructive criticism, it was well > suited to aliens but not well suited to less experienced drivers.Speaking > as a less experienced driver I had a great deal of difficulty with > directional control, and with sudden changes from understeer to oversteer. > It appears like what you did was take a typical GPL style alien setup and > make it somewhat more controllable by increasing the front damping. The > problem is that this only makes the car stable by causing understeerduring > pitch and roll events, under any other conditions it is still a bit loose. > Also the setup allowed way too much roll, making directional changes very > difficult. > > For a while I was practicing with my own variant of your setup, whereamong

Quoted text (10 lines)

> other things I put on a much bigger front bar and adjusted the damping to > 5/4 front and 4/3 rear (rebound/bump). Very similar to setups I have used > in F1C and GTR. This was much easier to drive, but was hell on the right > front tire. > > Honestly I think there is a serious flaw in the TA physics. It seems that > anything you do to give the car adequate roll control (bigger springs, > bigger bars) will eat the right front tire. The only way to control tire > wear is to use wimpy springs and bars. This allows huge suspension > deflections which are totally unrealistic for these types of cars. So I

can > see how you ended up with that setup and it makes sense from a performance > and tire wear standpoint, but it gives a huge advantage to the aliens who > are used to driving that type of setup. > > I still find the PWF expert setups for TA to be the easiest to drive.They > usually have a much bigger front bar than rear and more balanced damping. > The bigger front bar makes the car inherently stable, and the morebalanced > damping allows you to lean on the car pretty heavily without pushing. > Usually they are not so bad for tire wear. Unfortunately the LeBlancsetup > for this track really felt a lot different than the typical PWF setup and > most people found it undrivable also. > > Not sure what the magic setup is for this track. I really like the track > but I would like to think there is some way of setting up a drivable car > that is not hell on the tires. Tire wear is bad at the real life trackfrom > what I have heard, but I don't think it is as bad as we experienced in the > race. > > Again I question the TA physics. I still think the Papy tire model is > really not right for these cars, and the high CG complicates things even > further by making the car pitch and roll excessively. I wonder if theyplan > on addressing this at all or if we are just going to have to live with it. > Granted it's a fantasy series, but one would hope it would at least be > similar to real life series like SCCA Trans-Am, V8 Supercars, or DTM, andI

Quoted text (20 lines)

> honestly think it is not even remotely like any of them. > > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:bv0ngc$mf2ri$[email hidden]... > > ZZ wrote: > > > > > No offense Joachim, but that was bad. > > > > None taken, but I didn't see any complaints from those who tested it > > before the race, so what makes you say Dave was the _only_ one who could > > drive it? What was your prob with it? > > > > Regarding the gears, I'd noticed in my tests before uploading the setup > > that I was faster with these longer gear ratios than with shorter ones. > > That, plus the goal to have some margin for drafting, made me chose > > these ratios. > > > > That 1:55.901 I uploaded today was done with that setup btw, the only > > difference being tape = 70, and I started with only 10 laps worth of

fuel. > > > > Achim > >

Haqsau <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > That is undoubtedly a very fast setup in the right hands, but a lot of us > didn't have the right hands. ;o) > > Seriously, if you don't mind a little constructive criticism, it was well > suited to aliens but not well suited to less experienced drivers.Speaking > as a less experienced driver I had a great deal of difficulty with > directional control, and with sudden changes from understeer to oversteer. > It appears like what you did was take a typical GPL style alien setup and > make it somewhat more controllable by increasing the front damping. The > problem is that this only makes the car stable by causing understeerduring > pitch and roll events, under any other conditions it is still a bit loose. > Also the setup allowed way too much roll, making directional changes very > difficult. > > For a while I was practicing with my own variant of your setup, whereamong

Quoted text (10 lines)

> other things I put on a much bigger front bar and adjusted the damping to > 5/4 front and 4/3 rear (rebound/bump). Very similar to setups I have used > in F1C and GTR. This was much easier to drive, but was hell on the right > front tire. > > Honestly I think there is a serious flaw in the TA physics. It seems that > anything you do to give the car adequate roll control (bigger springs, > bigger bars) will eat the right front tire. The only way to control tire > wear is to use wimpy springs and bars. This allows huge suspension > deflections which are totally unrealistic for these types of cars. So I

can > see how you ended up with that setup and it makes sense from a performance > and tire wear standpoint, but it gives a huge advantage to the aliens who > are used to driving that type of setup. > > I still find the PWF expert setups for TA to be the easiest to drive.They > usually have a much bigger front bar than rear and more balanced damping. > The bigger front bar makes the car inherently stable, and the morebalanced > damping allows you to lean on the car pretty heavily without pushing. > Usually they are not so bad for tire wear. Unfortunately the LeBlancsetup > for this track really felt a lot different than the typical PWF setup and > most people found it undrivable also. > > Not sure what the magic setup is for this track. I really like the track > but I would like to think there is some way of setting up a drivable car > that is not hell on the tires. Tire wear is bad at the real life trackfrom > what I have heard, but I don't think it is as bad as we experienced in the > race. > > Again I question the TA physics. I still think the Papy tire model is > really not right for these cars, and the high CG complicates things even > further by making the car pitch and roll excessively. I wonder if theyplan > on addressing this at all or if we are just going to have to live with it. > Granted it's a fantasy series, but one would hope it would at least be > similar to real life series like SCCA Trans-Am, V8 Supercars, or DTM, andI > honestly think it is not even remotely like any of them. > You are correct; it doesn't remotely resemble TA racing. Like 03 pre-patch, completely unrealistic setup settings produce the results needed, as you've found, among other things, i.e., lowest ride height possible is way off, etc. Just the way it is. Surprised this hasn't been mentioned before.

I like the "idea" of high freq bumps but this implementation sucks :) When we can "SEE" the bumps then it'll be ok. This version of magic bumps just dont cut it IMO. Mitch "Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:bv0ngc$mf2ri$[email hidden]... > > ZZ wrote: > > > > > No offense Joachim, but that was bad. > > > > None taken, but I didn't see any complaints from those who tested it > > before the race, so what makes you say Dave was the _only_ one who could > > drive it? What was your prob with it? > > > > Regarding the gears, I'd noticed in my tests before uploading the setup > > that I was faster with these longer gear ratios than with shorter ones. > > That, plus the goal to have some margin for drafting, made me chose > > these ratios. > > > > That 1:55.901 I uploaded today was done with that setup btw, the only > > difference being tape = 70, and I started with only 10 laps worth of

fuel.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > > Achim > > FWIW; a view from someone not in the series (would like to do some but am > seldom home when they're run). I tried the setup when it was first > mentioned here the other day. With a look at the telemetry from Achim's > 1:56 and few more laps of my own to learn Sebring could run consistent

59's > with it. Nothing wrong with that setup imho. Plus, I've grown to really > like Sebring. I think the high frequency bumps combine nicely with thehigh > PTA grip levels to make for an interesting drive. Heck, I'd like to see > even more pronounced ripples on corner entrys and exits. That's where you > see them in real life. > > But something perhaps worth considering: quick setups like that might best > be tweaked a touch more for forgiveness, considering the range of driversin > the series. A click more front brake bias, a click off the rear ARBmaybe;

Quoted text (8 lines)

> that sort of thing. Minimal changes at most. While it would indeed take > the edge off for the quicker guys, the rest would find it more manageable, > and it might make for less incidents, a tighter grid and ultimately closer > competition over race distance. > > SB > >

Haqsau wrote: > That is undoubtedly a very fast setup in the right hands, > but a lot of us didn't have the right hands. ;o) <g> I'm not sure it's an alien vs. average driver thing. I think it's simply a matter of personal preference, or of the ability to adapt one's driving to a setup. However, I can't deny that although I've tried to make it more driveable, I've still tried to make it fast for me and my driving style. Most of the issues you described certainly came from this. > It appears like what you did was take a typical GPL style alien setup > make it somewhat more controllable by increasing the front damping. I have AAMOF modified my original setup quite substantially to make it more driveable and still fast. I've increased the front springs, and stiffened the front rebound accordingly. I've increased the caster, stiffened both a-r bars, and moved both the weight and brake balance to the front. And when making these changes, I've tried to make sure the roll couple doesn't change much because I wanted to avoid that the setup becomes too understeering. I didn't set the rear rebound to 3 because I felt that reduced the grip too much (it might feel easier to drive, but it will AAMOF make the rear end less stable). This was not a 'quick'n dirty mod'. I've worked on this, and tested it, quite diligently before mentioning it here. > other things I put on a much bigger front bar and adjusted the damping > to 5/4 front and 4/3 rear (rebound/bump). I disagree on the rear end. Depending on your rear springs, for my liking, with these settings the wheels will not have enough contact, especially considering the soft bump side. > Honestly I think there is a serious flaw in the TA physics. Too stiff settings at either end of the car will cause excessive tire wear, on both sides of the car. I agree that N2k3's physics are not perfect, but they're sufficiently credible for me to be fun. And you're right, the main reason for my soft setups is wear. I'm trying to keep wear low. With my own setups, I relinquish almost everything for that, and for keeping the wheels in contact with the asphalt. > Not sure what the magic setup is for this track. Maybe there is none. I've been offering setups for several sims for many years, and if there's one thing I have learnt, it is the fact that the same setup can be perceived as anything from perfect to completely unusable, it all depends on who you ask (excluding the creator <g>) Achim

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3ESQb.4905$[email hidden]... [snip] > All of the above made for a foul mood at the end of the race and following > (corrected) quote: "He may be the setup wizard to Neil, but IMO Joachim's > setups are of the Nilfisk variety."(*) >[snip] I am most definitely no setup expert but, like fine art, I know what I like ;) I think it's important not to judge a setup simply on your own experience. For example, I didn't like the RA setup at first and had to 'learn' how to drive it. After that, we could knock out qual pace laps lap after lap, all race long. At Sebring, the setup fitted much better. I stuffed up qualifying (as usual) and by the time I emerged from the pack I was over 20s behind the flying Dave and Ginger. By halfway, I had whittled 5 or 6 seconds off that and checked my tyres. They were hardly quarter used and I decided to pit early coming up to traffic and go like hell for the second half. Things didn't work out quite like that and instead Ginger was the one that turned an amazing series of laps after his bf. My point is, both at RA and Sebring, several of us were able to run very fast, consistent laps with low tyre wear. I'm not claiming the setups are realistic or otherwise - I wouldn't know. What I am saying is that you can adapt your style to make them into effective race setups. Equally, I would be very happy to run one of your setups - it would be fun if you made one for Norisring :) As Mitch said in another post, this winter experience has taught us a lot of things and I hope provided a lot of fun. I'm loving it ;) Regards

Jan Verschueren wrote: > It doesn't matter if it's faster or not in fixed setup racing. > Also, I want throttle controllable wheelspin in *BOTH* 1st and 2nd. Like I said in my reply to Haqsau, it's really just a matter of personal preference. A setup that's great to one, may be lousy to someone else. I don't need throttle controllable wheelspin anywhere :) I want the wheels to be just on the verge of spinning when I nail it. However, sometimes other considerations come into play. Sometimes you can use 1st very well in a corner where 2nd would be a tad long, and if you'd make that shorter you'd lose the ability to use 3rd somewhere where it's really nice to have it - so you give up the wheel spin in a particularly slow section... > Again: what the setup is capable of in "hotlapping mode" The laps I've uploaded in the past days were driven pretty much in 'race mode'. I had less fuel on board, but the driving style was geared towards keeping it on the track and being smooth, just like I'd drive in a race, and not for maximum speed, like hotlappers would drive. Achim

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:43:36 -0500, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> enlightened us by scribbling this gem of wisdom: >@*$#% **#$%% #**&# game. > >David G Fisher > _________________________ /| /| | | ||__|| | Please do not | / O O\__ feed the Trolls. | / \ Thank You. | / \ \ | / _ \ \---------------------� / |\____\ \ || / | | | |\____/ || / \|_|_|/ | _|| / / \ |____| || / | | | --| | | | |____ --| * _ | |_|_|_| | \-/ *-- _--\ _ \ | || / _ \\ | / `� * / \_ /- | | | * ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________ Usenet troll ------------ Climate/Terrain: Any Usenet newsgroup (Also "Any IRC channel", as they frequent IRC as well.) Frequency: Common Organization: Thread Activity cycle: Any Diet: Lusers Intelligence: Low (3-5) Treasure: None Alignment: Chaotic evil (neutral) No. Appearing: 1 Armour Class: n/a Movement: 'c' Hit Dice: 100 THAC0: n/a No. of Attacks: n/a Damage/Attack: n/a Special Attacks: See below Special Defenses: See below Magic Resistance: 100% Size: Exists as mental force only Morale: Elite (14) XP Value: 1,800 The Usenet troll (Trollicus useneticus bloodyirritatingus) is an evil mental parasite found in all areas of Usenet, where it preys upon the brains of lusers (Homo stultissimus). Most clueful people avoid these creatures, since Usenet trolls know no fear and attack unceasingly, demanding responses from their prey. Usenet trolls, unlike most trolls, are immune to flames (Flammae useneticae), which is unfortunate, as most will try to attack them with these first. In fact, when a troll is attacked with flames, it will actually be able to use these flames to create more, which it will hurl back at its unfortunate attacker. Long-lived trolls may be able to render an entire newsgroup uninhabitable with all the flames it creates. The only form of attack a troll has is its ability to incite responses, which it needs to feed from; hence, the best way to defend yourself against a troll is simply to ignore it. Deprived of nourishment, it will soon starve. Ancient legends (found in The Book of 1036) hint that a Usenet troll may be vulnerable to the Spell of Cancellation, but this powerful incantation would have to be applied swiftly after the troll's birth; once engaged in battle, few survive unscathed. ===================== This was copied WITHOUT permission, from Ninure Saunders' post.... <Gibs> When you kill 6 people in Unreal Tournament it is "MonsterKill", In Quake3 it is "Excellent", in Counter-Strike it is "Kicked by console"

Neil Charlton wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

> I am most definitely no setup expert but, like fine art, I know what I like > ;) I think it's important not to judge a setup simply on your own > experience. For example, I didn't like the RA setup at first and had to > 'learn' how to drive it. After that, we could knock out qual pace laps lap > after lap, all race long. > > At Sebring, the setup fitted much better. I stuffed up qualifying (as usual) > and by the time I emerged from the pack I was over 20s behind the flying > Dave and Ginger. By halfway, I had whittled 5 or 6 seconds off that and > checked my tyres. They were hardly quarter used and I decided to pit early > coming up to traffic and go like hell for the second half. Things didn't > work out quite like that and instead Ginger was the one that turned an > amazing series of laps after his bf. > > My point is, both at RA and Sebring, several of us were able to run very > fast, consistent laps with low tyre wear. I'm not claiming the setups are > realistic or otherwise - I wouldn't know. What I am saying is that you can > adapt your style to make them into effective race setups. Equally, I would > be very happy to run one of your setups - it would be fun if you made one > for Norisring :)

Good points IMO. There'll never be any single setup which fits the entire field. Whenever you drive someone else's setup, a few guys will be lucky and 'dig' it right away, but the majority will have to work on learning to understand how the setup works. Pretty much like when a real life race driver joins a new team, he'll have to learn how that new car works. I am hence not offended when someone doesn't 'like' my setups. I read comments applying a couple of 'for me' and 'IMO' and 'I could' or 'I couldn't', as they're usually a description of a driver's personal luck (or lack thereof) with a setup. Achim

"Joachim Trensz" wrote...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Like I said in my reply to Haqsau, it's really just a > matter of personal preference. A setup that's great to > one, may be lousy to someone else. > > I don't need throttle controllable wheelspin anywhere :) > I want the wheels to be just on the verge of spinning > when I nail it.

Valid point if our trans-am weren't equipped with a NASCAR mandated Detroit Locker (i.e. a solid rear axle under power). If you can't control wheelspin off slow corners you'll have to run the car too loose everywhere just to get off the slow corners. Which, BTW, your setup provides. > However, sometimes other considerations come into play. > Sometimes you can use 1st very well in a corner where 2nd > would be a tad long, and if you'd make that shorter you'd > lose the ability to use 3rd somewhere where it's really > nice to have it - so you give up the wheel spin in a > particularly slow section... And if you do that, eventually, you're going to be watching a race from some tight spot, you couldn't get out of because you couldn't spin the rear tyres. 1st is for making standing starts and tight hairpins. Ok, so I'm old fashioned, sue me.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Again: what the setup is capable of in "hotlapping mode" > > The laps I've uploaded in the past days were driven pretty > much in 'race mode'. I had less fuel on board, but the > driving style was geared towards keeping it on the track > and being smooth, just like I'd drive in a race, and not > for maximum speed, like hotlappers would drive.

LOL... the "I'm not a hotlapper" routine. ;-)) Race mode starts with 22 gallons of fuel, so by the time you get down to the "fast" fuel load the tyres will have given up their best and you'll be slower overall. Anything else is "qualifying mode" at best. Jan. =---

Jan Verschueren wrote: > Race mode starts with 22 gallons of fuel Only in cars with fixed rear axles, Jan. In most other racing series you're free to chose the fuel quantity you want, even at the start of a race :) Achim

Oh and I forgot to add... <g> Jan Verschueren wrote: > LOL... the "I'm not a hotlapper" routine. ;-)) Versus the 'Tag him as a hotlapper to make the speed differential look less big' routine? <g> ;) ;) Achim

"Neil Charlton" wrote... > > [snip] > > I am most definitely no setup expert but, like fine art, > I know what I like ;) I think it's important not to judge > a setup simply on your own experience. Unlike you're doing? -Just because you and Achim can get this crock o' shit around Sebring 5 seconds faster than I can doesn't lend any importance to your opinion over mine (or anyone else's) whatsoever. > <snip> > My point is, both at RA and Sebring, several of us were able > to run very fast, consistent laps with low tyre wear. That's entirely beside the point. An at least equal and in effect greater number didn't get on at all, including several drivers who can run with you in open setup / open wheel racing. The purpose, IMO, of fixed setup racing is to have a car that is, in a way, limited by setup and to have drivers deal with this situation to a varying degree, thus closing the field up. It is not about giving a select few what they need to be fast an leave the rest floundering in their wake. I will agree this is easier to acchieve in oval racing where it's beyond hard to take a car and make it go faster than it's ready to go by it's own devices, but this doesn't mean a setup without any natural balance should be selected as the norm for everyone in road racing. > I'm not claiming the setups are realistic or otherwise - I wouldn't know. You'd better not... according to the corner weights these cars weigh about 2400lbs and it's safe to say they'll generated at least once or even twice that as download. Running anything lower than an 800lbs spring at any corner is therefore silly. As are the game's imposed rideheights/rake. These cars, in RL, are to be run low and stiff. In the absense of "low", I suggest running them as stiff as possible. > What I am saying is that you can adapt your style to make them > into effective race setups. Absolute BS... I can adapt my style to suit any more or less correctly set up car, but I can't turn these hotlapper abominations into effective racecars by adapting my driving alone. > Equally, I would be very happy to run one of your setups - it would > be fun if you made one for Norisring :) Already done so... get practising!! ;-) > As Mitch said in another post, this winter experience has taught > us a lot of things and I hope provided a lot of fun. I'm loving it ;) It has taught me nothing other than the supposed TA physics in NR2003 are a bunch of hot air. They do not represent anything like TA cars and it appears there are no provisions for cars to have different handling characteristics in the game. Personally, I'd rather run BGN races. The "TA" cars can't be set up to handle like their RL counterparts and provide no challenge in their own right. They are simly hard work( i.e. no fun) to drive without anything resembling a reward in driving terms. Jan. =---

Jan, don't forget the rates you see in the setup screen are spring rates, not wheel rates. If they had IRS I would agree with you but they still have the trailing rear link live axle just like the cup cars. We don't know the leverage ratio but it is certainly much different front to rear, that's why on these types of cars the rear spring rates are always much lower than the fronts. On top of that there is a certain amount of roll stiffness that comes as a result of the rear link arrangement, independent of the springs. Huge rear springs are not necessary IMO, in fact to get the normal proportion of front deflection to rear deflection that is used on most RWD cars the rear springs only need to be 1/3 to 1/2 the strength of the fronts. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> Newsgroups: rec.autos.simulators Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 7:57 PM Subject: Re: N2003 Buggy POS Arcade Game > > ... according to the corner weights these cars weigh about > 2400lbs and it's safe to say they'll generated at least once or even twice > that as download. Running anything lower than an 800lbs spring at anycorner > is therefore silly.

Ya, I didn't think it felt that different either (except the gearing), however, my times dropped a full second and a half instantly when I went from Lablanc70 to Achims. Brian Oster On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 17:04:42 GMT, "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (93 lines)

>Funny part was after I lost my gears I went offline and ran some laps with >Leblanc70 setup and it didnt feel all that diff from Achims. Go figure. > >Mitch > > >"Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> That is undoubtedly a very fast setup in the right hands, but a lot of us >> didn't have the right hands. ;o) >> >> Seriously, if you don't mind a little constructive criticism, it was well >> suited to aliens but not well suited to less experienced drivers. >Speaking >> as a less experienced driver I had a great deal of difficulty with >> directional control, and with sudden changes from understeer to oversteer. >> It appears like what you did was take a typical GPL style alien setup and >> make it somewhat more controllable by increasing the front damping. The >> problem is that this only makes the car stable by causing understeer >during >> pitch and roll events, under any other conditions it is still a bit loose. >> Also the setup allowed way too much roll, making directional changes very >> difficult. >> >> For a while I was practicing with my own variant of your setup, where >among >> other things I put on a much bigger front bar and adjusted the damping to >> 5/4 front and 4/3 rear (rebound/bump). Very similar to setups I have used >> in F1C and GTR. This was much easier to drive, but was hell on the right >> front tire. >> >> Honestly I think there is a serious flaw in the TA physics. It seems that >> anything you do to give the car adequate roll control (bigger springs, >> bigger bars) will eat the right front tire. The only way to control tire >> wear is to use wimpy springs and bars. This allows huge suspension >> deflections which are totally unrealistic for these types of cars. So I >can >> see how you ended up with that setup and it makes sense from a performance >> and tire wear standpoint, but it gives a huge advantage to the aliens who >> are used to driving that type of setup. >> >> I still find the PWF expert setups for TA to be the easiest to drive. >They >> usually have a much bigger front bar than rear and more balanced damping. >> The bigger front bar makes the car inherently stable, and the more >balanced >> damping allows you to lean on the car pretty heavily without pushing. >> Usually they are not so bad for tire wear. Unfortunately the LeBlanc >setup >> for this track really felt a lot different than the typical PWF setup and >> most people found it undrivable also. >> >> Not sure what the magic setup is for this track. I really like the track >> but I would like to think there is some way of setting up a drivable car >> that is not hell on the tires. Tire wear is bad at the real life track >from >> what I have heard, but I don't think it is as bad as we experienced in the >> race. >> >> Again I question the TA physics. I still think the Papy tire model is >> really not right for these cars, and the high CG complicates things even >> further by making the car pitch and roll excessively. I wonder if they >plan >> on addressing this at all or if we are just going to have to live with it. >> Granted it's a fantasy series, but one would hope it would at least be >> similar to real life series like SCCA Trans-Am, V8 Supercars, or DTM, and >I >> honestly think it is not even remotely like any of them. >> >> >> "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:bv0ngc$mf2ri$[email hidden]... >> > ZZ wrote: >> > >> > > No offense Joachim, but that was bad. >> > >> > None taken, but I didn't see any complaints from those who tested it >> > before the race, so what makes you say Dave was the _only_ one who could >> > drive it? What was your prob with it? >> > >> > Regarding the gears, I'd noticed in my tests before uploading the setup >> > that I was faster with these longer gear ratios than with shorter ones. >> > That, plus the goal to have some margin for drafting, made me chose >> > these ratios. >> > >> > That 1:55.901 I uploaded today was done with that setup btw, the only >> > difference being tape = 70, and I started with only 10 laps worth of >fuel. >> > >> > Achim >> >> >

Somewhere on here, I said the same thing. My lap time instantly dropped 1.5 seconds the first time I tried it. The only significant adjustment I had to make was getting used to the gearing, which only took a couple of laps. David G Fisher "Brian Oster" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Ya, I didn't think it felt that different either (except the gearing), > however, my times dropped a full second and a half instantly when I > went from Lablanc70 to Achims. > > Brian Oster > > On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 17:04:42 GMT, "Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Funny part was after I lost my gears I went offline and ran some laps

with

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >Leblanc70 setup and it didnt feel all that diff from Achims. Go figure. > > > >Mitch > > > > > >"Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >news:[email hidden]... > >> That is undoubtedly a very fast setup in the right hands, but a lot of

us > >> didn't have the right hands. ;o) > >> > >> Seriously, if you don't mind a little constructive criticism, it waswell > >> suited to aliens but not well suited to less experienced drivers. > >Speaking > >> as a less experienced driver I had a great deal of difficulty with > >> directional control, and with sudden changes from understeer tooversteer. > >> It appears like what you did was take a typical GPL style alien setupand > >> make it somewhat more controllable by increasing the front damping.The > >> problem is that this only makes the car stable by causing understeer > >during > >> pitch and roll events, under any other conditions it is still a bitloose. > >> Also the setup allowed way too much roll, making directional changesvery > >> difficult. > >> > >> For a while I was practicing with my own variant of your setup, where > >among > >> other things I put on a much bigger front bar and adjusted the dampingto > >> 5/4 front and 4/3 rear (rebound/bump). Very similar to setups I haveused > >> in F1C and GTR. This was much easier to drive, but was hell on theright > >> front tire. > >> > >> Honestly I think there is a serious flaw in the TA physics. It seemsthat > >> anything you do to give the car adequate roll control (bigger springs, > >> bigger bars) will eat the right front tire. The only way to controltire > >> wear is to use wimpy springs and bars. This allows huge suspension > >> deflections which are totally unrealistic for these types of cars. SoI > >can > >> see how you ended up with that setup and it makes sense from aperformance > >> and tire wear standpoint, but it gives a huge advantage to the alienswho > >> are used to driving that type of setup. > >> > >> I still find the PWF expert setups for TA to be the easiest to drive. > >They > >> usually have a much bigger front bar than rear and more balanceddamping. > >> The bigger front bar makes the car inherently stable, and the more > >balanced > >> damping allows you to lean on the car pretty heavily without pushing. > >> Usually they are not so bad for tire wear. Unfortunately the LeBlanc > >setup > >> for this track really felt a lot different than the typical PWF setupand > >> most people found it undrivable also. > >> > >> Not sure what the magic setup is for this track. I really like thetrack > >> but I would like to think there is some way of setting up a drivablecar > >> that is not hell on the tires. Tire wear is bad at the real life track > >from > >> what I have heard, but I don't think it is as bad as we experienced inthe > >> race. > >> > >> Again I question the TA physics. I still think the Papy tire model is > >> really not right for these cars, and the high CG complicates thingseven > >> further by making the car pitch and roll excessively. I wonder if they > >plan > >> on addressing this at all or if we are just going to have to live withit. > >> Granted it's a fantasy series, but one would hope it would at least be > >> similar to real life series like SCCA Trans-Am, V8 Supercars, or DTM,and

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >I > >> honestly think it is not even remotely like any of them. > >> > >> > >> "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > >> news:bv0ngc$mf2ri$[email hidden]... > >> > ZZ wrote: > >> > > >> > > No offense Joachim, but that was bad. > >> > > >> > None taken, but I didn't see any complaints from those who tested it > >> > before the race, so what makes you say Dave was the _only_ one who

could > >> > drive it? What was your prob with it? > >> > > >> > Regarding the gears, I'd noticed in my tests before uploading thesetup > >> > that I was faster with these longer gear ratios than with shorterones.

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >> > That, plus the goal to have some margin for drafting, made me chose > >> > these ratios. > >> > > >> > That 1:55.901 I uploaded today was done with that setup btw, the only > >> > difference being tape = 70, and I started with only 10 laps worth of > >fuel. > >> > > >> > Achim > >> > >> > > >

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:eCZQb.5505$[email hidden]... > > My point is, both at RA and Sebring, several of us were able > > to run very fast, consistent laps with low tyre wear. > > That's entirely beside the point. An at least equal and in effect greater > number didn't get on at all, including several drivers who can run withyou > in open setup / open wheel racing. > > The purpose, IMO, of fixed setup racing is to have a car that is, in away, > limited by setup and to have drivers deal with this situation to a varying > degree, thus closing the field up. It is not about giving a select fewwhat > they need to be fast an leave the rest floundering in their wake. How was a select few given what they need to be fast? It's the same setup for everyone. No one got together and said, "let's find setups that are best for us." For Kyalami, we used the setup that came with the track. At LeMans, we could not use the <fast> setup because engines would of been blowing up left and right. JS provided the only alternative setup, and that's what we used. At RA, we used the setup that came with the track. No one provided an alternative. At Sebring, we used Joachim's setup because after polling the group, not one single person objected to a switch to his form the leblanc setup. Also, most said it was better than the leblanc setup. They may have not been thrilled with it, but they thought it was better, and it was the only alternative as well. Who's been the fastest drivers in all those races? Setups came from different sources, but the results have been the same. I remember Brian Farmer saying he initially didn't like the Sebring setup too much, but he apparently adjusted quite well to it after some laps. Everyone needs to adjust to every setup. > > What I am saying is that you can adapt your style to make them > > into effective race setups. > > Absolute BS... I can adapt my style to suit any more or less correctly set > up car, but I can't turn these hotlapper abominations into effective > racecars by adapting my driving alone. I just don't get it. I tried Joachim's LeMans setup, then JS's, then yours. It took no effort to adjust from one to the other. All I had to do was get used to the gearing. The times were close (1.7 seconds difference between Joachim's and yours). You adjust. How are they hotlapper abominations? They aren't even all from the same source. Of the four TA races we've run, I think the only race where I've looped it or gone off the track (unless caused by a screen freeze like at Sebring)was LeMans. Hotlapper setups are setups that are easy to lose, and usually lousy for a full race. These setups haven't been like that at all. RA felt like it was glued to the track. > > As Mitch said in another post, this winter experience has taught > > us a lot of things and I hope provided a lot of fun. I'm loving it ;) > > It has taught me nothing other than the supposed TA physics in NR2003 area > bunch of hot air. They do not represent anything like TA cars and itappears > there are no provisions for cars to have different handlingcharacteristics > in the game. Personally, I'd rather run BGN races. The "TA" cars can't be > set up to handle like their RL counterparts and provide no challenge in > their own right. They are simly hard work( i.e. no fun) to drive without > anything resembling a reward in driving terms. They are fun as h*ll for me to drive, and very rewarding. David G Fisher

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:eCZQb.5505$[email hidden]... > > > > What I am saying is that you can adapt your style to make them > > > into effective race setups. > > > > Absolute BS... I can adapt my style to suit any more or less correctly set > > up car, but I can't turn these hotlapper abominations into effective > > racecars by adapting my driving alone.

Everyone write this down - I agree with Dave. My setups (when I feel like working on one) are the furthest thing from hotlapper setups that you'll ever find. I have no interest in running two or three laps at a time to find the absolute best lap time at the expense of tires and fuel consumption. I ALWAYS make race setups, and I even my race setups for qualifying. Like Dave said, adapting to a setup is what it's all about. If that means changing your driving style a bit to compensate for perceived weaknesses in the setup, so be it. On the other hand, fixed setups at roadies are kinda pointless because you don't slow the fast guys down as much as you slow the slow guys down. As Dave pointed out, the same guys are always in the front at road course events, and I witnessed that when I was running a GPL league - in Season 1, it was almost always Graeme Nash, Tony Rickard, and then me. For road events, I simply try to turn the best, most consistent laps I can, try my best to stay out of trouble and on the racing surface pointed in the right direction, and pray that the fast guys abuse their car a little too often or magically develop a nervous twitch at a critical moment and run off the course so I can gain a few seconds on them.

"Haqsau" wrote... > Jan, don't forget the rates you see in the setup screen > are spring rates, not wheel rates. Yes, I know that. > If they had IRS I would agree with you but they still have > the trailing rear link live axle just like the cup cars. > We don't know the leverage ratio but it is certainly much > different front to rear, that's why on these types of cars > the rear spring rates are always much lower than the > fronts. At Le Mans the rear suspension bottoms while running in a straight line, that's six inches of suspension travel or, in other words, at least 1500lbs of load per wheel. If that were my racecar, I'd only want to give up about 1 inch of suspension travel to download. That's where I arrived at the 800lbs spring (absolute minimum), then I would balance it up at the front getting to whatever ratio feels comfortable to the driver.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> On top of that there is a certain amount of roll stiffness > that comes as a result of the rear link arrangement, > independent of the springs. > Huge rear springs are not necessary IMO, in fact to get the > normal proportion of front deflection to rear deflection > that is used on most RWD cars the rear springs only need > to be 1/3 to 1/2 the strength of the fronts.

Yes, my Norisring setup is like that after I found the rear springs only go up to 650lbs. Still a bit soft for my liking. Jan. =---

I don't remember it ever being an issue during the first two RASCAR seasons. David G Fisher "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 13:24:58 GMT, "ZZ" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >He had a few screen lock ups while leading our Sebring race. I think hewas

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >quite far in the lead too. > >Dave being the only one that could drive that setup. I never hit 6th gear > >during the whole practice and race. > >No offense Joachim, but that was bad. > > Fixed-setups on road courses is a stupid idea. On ovals it makes > sense, on road courses it is utterly ridiculous. > > Jason

Damn, I agree :) -Larry "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 13:24:58 GMT, "ZZ" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Fixed-setups on road courses is a stupid idea. On ovals it makes > sense, on road courses it is utterly ridiculous. > > Jason

I think the cup setups for WG and SP are a bit more polished for the average non-alien :) -Larry "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I don't remember it ever being an issue during the first two RASCARseasons.

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > David G Fisher > > "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 13:24:58 GMT, "ZZ" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >He had a few screen lock ups while leading our Sebring race. I think he > was > > >quite far in the lead too. > > >Dave being the only one that could drive that setup. I never hit 6th

gear

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > >during the whole practice and race. > > >No offense Joachim, but that was bad. > > > > Fixed-setups on road courses is a stupid idea. On ovals it makes > > sense, on road courses it is utterly ridiculous. > > > > Jason > >

Explain the logic on this one? How is fixed setups on road courses and less stupid than on ovals? "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:x9fRb.281$fZ6.264@lakeread06...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Damn, I agree :) > > -Larry > > "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 13:24:58 GMT, "ZZ" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > Fixed-setups on road courses is a stupid idea. On ovals it makes > > sense, on road courses it is utterly ridiculous. > > > > Jason > >

"David G Fisher" wrote... > > > <snip> > How was a select few given what they need to be fast? > It's the same setup for everyone. No one got together > and said, "let's find setups that are best for us." Of course not, you're misinterpreting me.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> For Kyalami, we used the setup that came with the > track. > > At LeMans, we could not use the <fast> setup because > engines would of been blowing up left and right. JS > provided the only alternative setup, and that's what > we used.

Like I said, I wasn't able to provide an alternative so therefore I had no real right to complain. Besides, the <fast> setup was just as bad in handling terms. > At RA, we used the setup that came with the track. No > one provided an alternative. I wasn't able to be there, so didn't even bother to install the track. > At Sebring, we used Joachim's setup because after polling > the group, not one single person objected to a switch to > his from the leblanc setup. Also, most said it was better > than the leblanc setup. They may have not been thrilled > with it, but they thought it was better, and it was the > only alternative as well. Again, no bones there. > Who's been the fastest drivers in all those races? Setups > came from different sources, but the results have been the > same. And I'm not begrudging that... these guys will beat me most of the time regardless of setup.

Quoted text (11 lines)

> I remember Brian Farmer saying he initially didn't like > the Sebring setup too much, but he apparently adjusted > quite well to it after some laps. Everyone needs to > adjust to every setup. > > > <snip> > > <snip> > I just don't get it. I tried Joachim's LeMans setup, > then JS's, then yours. It took no effort to adjust from > one to the other. All I had to do was get used to the > gearing. The times were close (1.7 seconds difference > between Joachim's and yours). You adjust.

No, you don't get it. You adjust down to a setup I consider stable, I have to adjust up to drive a setup you consider perfectly adequate. It's one thing to have walk a sturdy bridge with a bunch of guys who are afraid of heights, it's another to have to walk a loosely strung tightrope with a couple of no-fear loonies who bounce and wiggle the thing up and down and from side to side. JS's setup at Le Mans is a knife's edge. Especially through T1 and between Arnage and Maison Blanc. You have to get it exactly right or it will kill you (either literally or in terms of lap time). My setup you have to get it exactly right to go really fast as well, but there's more chance of doing so and there's less of a penalty for being not quite so accurate. Which one gives you the more confidence in the car? > How are they hotlapper abominations? They aren't even > all from the same source. I'm not saying JS's Le Mans setup is a hotlapper abomination for he has a reason to flaunt accepted practise with respect to spring rates. I don't agree with the gearing, but that's more of a preference thing (and something I can driver around). Again: I haven't even tried the RA setup, but judging from 2nd hand information (by people who's likes, dislikes and driving styles are intimate knowledge to me) I can get a general idea. Achim has no real excuse for his Sebring setup. He did what he did to make the car faster in the sim, regardless of any real world vehicle dynamics considerations. Also, he's introduced certain elements to help his style, which, regardless of what he claims, employs various hotlapper techniques (as evident from his Norisring hotlap using my setup) IMO. > Of the four TA races we've run, I think the only race > where I've looped it or gone off the track (unless > caused by a screen freeze like at Sebring) was LeMans. I lost it at Kyalami though brainfade and Indianapolis/Le Mans due to the poor natural balance of the setup. And, no, I don't care whether more talented drivers can keep the car balanced regardless... for fixed setup racing setups need to have a built in balance, bit like a 4wd car. > Hotlapper setups are setups that are easy to lose, and > usually lousy for a full race. These setups haven't been > like that at all. RA felt like it was glued to the track. So you draw the line differently then I do. > > > <snip> > They are fun as h*ll for me to drive, and very rewarding. It's fun in a sort of empty headed, get all the sliding out of your system kind of way, but they require hardly anything in the way of discipline to drive effectively and therefore there's hardly any reward in them for those a bit further down on the absolute speed scale. Jan. =---

Because people not experienced Road Racers being given setups that are tailored for aliens is a BAD combination. We mere mortals tend to do much better in cars that we are _comfortable_ with, and can usually go faster with a lesser setup because we are more confident in what we are doing. Speaking for myself, of course :) -Larry "Bill Bollinger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Explain the logic on this one? How is fixed setups on road courses andless

Quoted text (21 lines)

> stupid than on ovals? > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:x9fRb.281$fZ6.264@lakeread06... > > Damn, I agree :) > > > > -Larry > > > > "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 13:24:58 GMT, "ZZ" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > Fixed-setups on road courses is a stupid idea. On ovals it makes > > > sense, on road courses it is utterly ridiculous. > > > > > > Jason > > > > > >

Well, then if a fixed setup race, use a more "comfortable" setup not an "alien" setup. "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:gmkRb.1006$fZ6.928@lakeread06...

Quoted text (36 lines)

> Because people not experienced Road Racers being given setups that are > tailored for aliens is a BAD combination. We mere mortals tend to do much > better in cars that we are _comfortable_ with, and can usually go faster > with a lesser setup because we are more confident in what we are doing. > > Speaking for myself, of course :) > > -Larry > > "Bill Bollinger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Explain the logic on this one? How is fixed setups on road courses and > less > > stupid than on ovals? > > > > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:x9fRb.281$fZ6.264@lakeread06... > > > Damn, I agree :) > > > > > > -Larry > > > > > > "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 13:24:58 GMT, "ZZ" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > > > Fixed-setups on road courses is a stupid idea. On ovals it makes > > > > sense, on road courses it is utterly ridiculous. > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > >

Jan Verschueren wrote: > Achim has no real excuse for his Sebring setup. I'm really such a bad boy... ;) Achim

"Joachim Trensz" wrote... > > <snip> > I'm really such a bad boy... ;) <vbg> Jan. =---

Jan Verschueren wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> "Joachim Trensz" wrote... > >>><snip> >> >>I'm really such a bad boy... ;) > > > <vbg> > > Jan. > =--- > >

And in pure, cold-blooded revenge I've updated my own Noris setup today! <g> Achim

LOL! You need to read our threads Amish :) That's kind of our exact discussion. -Larry "Bill Bollinger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Well, then if a fixed setup race, use a more "comfortable" setup not an > "alien" setup. > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:gmkRb.1006$fZ6.928@lakeread06... > > Because people not experienced Road Racers being given setups that are > > tailored for aliens is a BAD combination. We mere mortals tend to do

much

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > better in cars that we are _comfortable_ with, and can usually go faster > > with a lesser setup because we are more confident in what we are doing. > > > > Speaking for myself, of course :) > > > > -Larry > > > > "Bill Bollinger" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > Explain the logic on this one? How is fixed setups on road courses

and

Quoted text (26 lines)

> > less > > > stupid than on ovals? > > > > > > > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:x9fRb.281$fZ6.264@lakeread06... > > > > Damn, I agree :) > > > > > > > > -Larry > > > > > > > > "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 13:24:58 GMT, "ZZ" <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Fixed-setups on road courses is a stupid idea. On ovals it makes > > > > > sense, on road courses it is utterly ridiculous. > > > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:47:30 -0500, "Bill Bollinger" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Explain the logic on this one? How is fixed setups on road courses and less >stupid than on ovals? On ovals, the aim of a setup is speed. Maximum grip, maximum top speed, maximum turning ability, etc. While different drivers have different preferences for oval setups, the variation in setup philosophy is fairly narrow and laptimes are based more on the quality of setup than driver skill (for the sake of convenience I'm separating 'driver skill' from 'testing skill', which is obviously an important trait for an oval driver). On a road course, the potential of a setup is almost entirely driver dependent. There are a wide variety of styles for attacking a road course, and each style requires a different kind of setup in order to achieve consistency. What feels good to Achim or David feels like a school bus to me. What feels good to me would probably have Achim or David scratching their heads wondering how the hell I can drive it with any consistency. There are some good quotes from Steve Smith in the CART Racing Strategy Guide (p. 123) on this subject: "On an oval, there's basically one correct way to drive a lap...and everything else is either a compromise or a mistake. In road racing, there are as many acceptable ways to attack the circuit as there are driving styles." "And while there are near-perfect setups for the ovals (all the theories tend to converge on a single point), road racing setups are far more nebulous." Jason

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:19:59 -0500, "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I think the cup setups for WG and SP are a bit more polished for the >average non-alien :) I don't think the problem with running fixed setups on a road course has anything to do with aliens vs non aliens. My laptimes are pretty close to Achim at most tracks using my setups, and nowhere near that using his. It's more about style than skill. I find his setups perfectly easy to drive, I just don't find them particularly enjoyable. Jason

"Joachim Trensz" wrote... > And in pure, cold-blooded revenge I've > updated my own Noris setup today! <g> How can someone of your ability level possibly stand a setup like that? -Other than you made it yourself, obviously. It just falls over and takes off, especially at the rear. Doesn't that bother you? Jan. =---

Jan Verschueren wrote: ... > > How can someone of your ability level possibly stand a setup like > that? -Other than you made it yourself, obviously. > > It just falls over and takes off, especially at the rear. Doesn't that > bother you? For me, it's easy to drive, and feels stable. It has the balance I want, that balance doesn't change much over the race distance, and it has good wear characteristics. That's what I'm looking for in a setup. Your Norisring setup is good, or else I couldn't have driven it to a 48.3 with just 9 laps of practice. But some prefer this, others prefer that - all ways will take you to Rome, as the Romans used to say :) Achim

Amen! -- ed_ "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> skrev i melding news:[email hidden]... > On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:47:30 -0500, "Bill Bollinger" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Explain the logic on this one? How is fixed setups on road courses and less > >stupid than on ovals? > > On ovals, the aim of a setup is speed. Maximum grip, maximum top > speed, maximum turning ability, etc. While different drivers have > different preferences for oval setups, the variation in setup > philosophy is fairly narrow and laptimes are based more on the quality > of setup than driver skill (for the sake of convenience I'm separating > 'driver skill' from 'testing skill', which is obviously an important > trait for an oval driver). > > On a road course, the potential of a setup is almost entirely driver > dependent. There are a wide variety of styles for attacking a road > course, and each style requires a different kind of setup in order to > achieve consistency. What feels good to Achim or David feels like a > school bus to me. What feels good to me would probably have Achim or > David scratching their heads wondering how the hell I can drive it > with any consistency. > > There are some good quotes from Steve Smith in the CART Racing > Strategy Guide (p. 123) on this subject: > > "On an oval, there's basically one correct way to drive a lap...and > everything else is either a compromise or a mistake. In road racing, > there are as many acceptable ways to attack the circuit as there are > driving styles." > > "And while there are near-perfect setups for the ovals (all the > theories tend to converge on a single point), road racing setups are > far more nebulous." > > Jason

jason moyer wrote: > "And while there are near-perfect setups for the ovals (all the > theories tend to converge on a single point), road racing setups are > far more nebulous." Add to this the fact that each of us has his own ideas and expectations how the car class he's simulating should feel to feel credible to him, and the variance in what the drivers want increases even further. > What feels good to Achim or David feels like a school bus to me. It's not that I am thrilled by the huge body roll and pitch. I'm only accepting it as a compromise between what I want, and what's possible in N2k3. Of course I'd like to have a stiffer and less roll/pitch-happy chassis when I'm trying to simulate GT cars, TransAms or even Prototypes, more like what Simbin's GTR2002 mod looked and felt like, there's no question about it. But, in N2k3, just stiffening the suspension for me personally doesn't make the car feel (and look, from the driver seat) any more convincing as a GT, TA or Prototype simulation than it is with my soft suspension settings, as while things get stiffer, that specific type of visual jitter the N2k3 cars produce in these circumstances to me doesn't look anywhere nearer to what I think the simulated racecars should look like from the inside than my soft setups. It spoils my suspense of disbelief, as to me, this type of visual jitter indicates long springs with many coils which haven't been properly dampened, and that's not what these cars in my subconcious expectation should look like (I'd expect some jitter, but it should look different <g>). Since I find this visually annoying, I've decided for myself that since in addition this is how N2k3's physics, which were originally made for Nascars, work, I'll just accept this as something I can't change and go with it. And since when setting up a real car, you'll also try to make it as soft as possible, and as hard as necessary, to get a good compromise between grip, wear and driveability, that's what I'm trying to do. I try to use N2k3's physics in the way they were meant to be used as that's how the sim works, and accept the drawbacks as doing otherwise for me personally doesn't have any advantages. I can handle the softness well, and over the race distance it does have advantages as it preserves the tires well, so I just accept it as part of how N2k3 works and was meant to be used. I'll of course gladly accept anyone's opinion who feels that to him those stiffer suspensions make the car look or feel more real - I just don't share these feelings. But this notwithstanding, I'd like the roll and pitch to look more like what Simbins GTR mod looked and felt like, there's no doubt about it. > What feels good to me would probably have Achim or > David scratching their heads wondering how the hell > I can drive it with any consistency. AAMOF, I drove Jan's Norisring setup he posted in the RASCAR forum, and felt comfortable with it right way. I didn't like that aforementioned jitter, but that's merely a visual thing, not something that would affect the driving. I do think that Jan's setup will be harder on the tires over a race distance, but that's a purely strategical consideration. It may also be less controllable when you go over the curbs, but that shouldn't happen too often at the Norisring anyway, so if I had to drive his setup, I wouldn't mind. Anyway, it's not that I _want_ to have the setups as soft as I use them. I just try to accept the characteristics of N2k3's Cup car style physics as doing otherwise doesn't get me nearer to what I'm trying to simulate either, and does go a bit against how the sim was meant to be used - only IMHO of course. Achim

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:19:54 +0100, Joachim Trensz <[email hidden]> wrote: >And since when setting up a real car, you'll also try to make it as soft >as possible, and as hard as necessary, to get a good compromise between >grip, wear and driveability, that's what I'm trying to do. I try to use >N2k3's physics in the way they were meant to be used as that's how the >sim works, and accept the drawbacks as doing otherwise for me personally >doesn't have any advantages. I make mine soft too, I just tend to focus more on making the springs and shocks soft and then using the bars to eliminate most of the lateral rolling (one thing I took from the recommendations of the Jasper engineer, actually). The end result is similar tire wear/temps but a car that suits my style more. At some tracks I'll have a rear tire that's too hot (at Watkins Glen for example, the left rear heats up too quickly with my baseline setup) so I just make moderate adjustments to either the crossweight or do some weight jacking with the springs. I'll also often run a bit less spoiler and shift a tiny bit of weight forward depending on the circuit, since 70 seems less than optimum at most tracks. To me the debate over setup/style seems fairly obvious and can be seen almost anywhere in road course racing. Team Lotus in 78 is a good example. You have Mario, who preferred a car that allowed him to keep moving forward in corners with minimum lateral rolling and Ronnie, who preferred a car that he could throw around with reckless abandon. Not much of a difference in skill or results at that point in their careers but 2 completely different approaches to setting up and driving the same car (and one of the last years in f1 where those approaches were valid, actually, since ground effect required stiff everything in order to keep the tunnels close to the ground). Jason

jason moyer wrote: ... > I make mine soft too, I just tend to focus more on making the springs > and shocks soft and then using the bars to eliminate most of the > lateral rolling I am AAMOF with my newer setups (Sebring being one of them) stiffening the sway bars some more. I tried it once a while ago, I forget why, and noticed to my surprise that as long as I maintained the overall balance, these 1000/1000 bars made the car more driveable without reducing the mileage I was getting out of the tires. I am currently (gradually) redoing most of my setups somewhat based on that finding, stiffening the sway bars some and adding some castor (except at extremes like Monaco), i.e. I am moving towards reducing the body roll some as well. I hesitate to stiffen the front bar more and thereby to actually change the balance substantially (I'd be more inclined if the rear bar weren't stuck at 1000, and the track bars just don't make up for that for me, they deliver a different result), but maybe I'll experiment some with this as well. But you know how it is. Once you've found a working base setup, you tend to stick to that, even if perhaps you could improve, just because any appropriately methodical testing is complex and time consuming. Achim

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:25:48 +0100, Joachim Trensz <[email hidden]> wrote: >I hesitate to stiffen the front bar more and thereby to actually change >the balance substantially (I'd be more inclined if the rear bar weren't >stuck at 1000, and the track bars just don't make up for that for me, >they deliver a different result), but maybe I'll experiment some with >this as well. Honestly, I tend to keep the roll couple set to 90 and then balance the cornering with the shocks. For me, that was the hardest part of getting a setup that felt right, and something I'm still always messing around with. At Le Mans, where 1/9 shocks tack an extra 2mph onto the mulsanne speed and 450/150 springs are mandatory, it took a lot of stumbling around in the dark a bit trying to get the bars/weight setup for proper balance through dunlop (I ended up messing with the shock compression anyway, apparently the 9 rebound holding the car down is what helps with the drag). Jason

Jason, but to say that fixed setups don't matter in oval racing is wrong. Oval racing is about 90% setup vs. 10% driver skill. Road Racing is about 90% driver skill and 10% setup. My belief and I believe I am right on this is that in a fixed road racing league, the good drivers will move to the top on a more consistent basis than in a fixed oval league, therefore, it is more logical to say that it is better to run a fixed road racing league vs. fixed oval league. I know what your point is, but what most of you guys are not factoring into your discussion is how much of a difference is being caused by system differences, not driver preference. "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:47:30 -0500, "Bill Bollinger" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Explain the logic on this one? How is fixed setups on road courses andless

Quoted text (31 lines)

> >stupid than on ovals? > > On ovals, the aim of a setup is speed. Maximum grip, maximum top > speed, maximum turning ability, etc. While different drivers have > different preferences for oval setups, the variation in setup > philosophy is fairly narrow and laptimes are based more on the quality > of setup than driver skill (for the sake of convenience I'm separating > 'driver skill' from 'testing skill', which is obviously an important > trait for an oval driver). > > On a road course, the potential of a setup is almost entirely driver > dependent. There are a wide variety of styles for attacking a road > course, and each style requires a different kind of setup in order to > achieve consistency. What feels good to Achim or David feels like a > school bus to me. What feels good to me would probably have Achim or > David scratching their heads wondering how the hell I can drive it > with any consistency. > > There are some good quotes from Steve Smith in the CART Racing > Strategy Guide (p. 123) on this subject: > > "On an oval, there's basically one correct way to drive a lap...and > everything else is either a compromise or a mistake. In road racing, > there are as many acceptable ways to attack the circuit as there are > driving styles." > > "And while there are near-perfect setups for the ovals (all the > theories tend to converge on a single point), road racing setups are > far more nebulous." > > Jason

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:10:50 -0500, "Bill Bollinger" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>Jason, but to say that fixed setups don't matter in oval racing is wrong. >Oval racing is about 90% setup vs. 10% driver skill. Road Racing is about >90% driver skill and 10% setup. My belief and I believe I am right on this >is that in a fixed road racing league, the good drivers will move to the top >on a more consistent basis than in a fixed oval league, therefore, it is >more logical to say that it is better to run a fixed road racing league vs. >fixed oval league. I know what your point is, but what most of you guys are >not factoring into your discussion is how much of a difference is being >caused by system differences, not driver preference.

I don't think the limiting factor in a fixed road racing series is skill. It's style. Road racing is 10% setup and 90% "does the driver feel comfortable driving that setup". Jason

In article <[email hidden]>, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> writes: >I just don't get it. I tried Joachim's LeMans setup, then JS's, then yours. >It took no effort to adjust from one to the other. All I had to do was get >used to the gearing. The times were close (1.7 seconds difference between >Joachim's and yours). You adjust. That's not necessarily as easy as you make it seem. If I'm used to a road course setup that pushes, then I'll catch HELL with a setup from someone who likes a tail-happy car. Sure, I may be able to get it around the track, but I'll have to go a LOT slower to keep the back end where it belongs. Sure, I can get a twitchy GH setup around Rouen, but I'm 10-15 seconds slower than with my normal setup. And I'd have to worry about spinning in every 3rd turn. Some things some people just CAN'T adjust to... Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Member Screamers Racing League IICC League GPLRank -6.0 MoGPL rank +267.80 ChallengeRank +52.58 MoC +741.71 Hist. +82.34 MoH in progress N2k3 rank:in progress Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

In article <[email hidden]>, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> writes: >These setups haven't been like that at all. >RA felt like it was glued to the track. The *standard* RA setup??? Damn, I could barely get around the track without almost crashing every lap. I was about 6 seconds off the pace in another leagues testing race. :-( Eldred -- Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Member Screamers Racing League IICC League GPLRank -6.0 MoGPL rank +267.80 ChallengeRank +52.58 MoC +741.71 Hist. +82.34 MoH in progress N2k3 rank:in progress Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.