GPL "No Lotus" races

I've noticed a number of "no Lotus" races on VROC lately, and can understand why there might be this request. Some may ask why the game has a car that is apparently so superior. Well, if you're running in long Pro or GP races, it really is not as superior as you might think because of its lack of reliability. Lotuses can tend to blow engines, and in a Pro or better race that ends your day. Twitchy handling can also put you into an accident that puts you out. But in novice or intermediate, or with a shorter race length, they are less likely to blow and then do have a significant performance advantage. -- Doug Gordon (remove "nospam" from e-mail address)

I dont find the handling bad oin the lotus and realisticly, tell me how often someone blows their engine in a lotus in a long race. In all of my pro long races ive be in, my brabham and ferrari has blown up more times than any lotii i have seen. If you shift a hundred RPM below you normally do, it is still just as fast and more reliable. I think that the lotus is too reliable. I think in the next patch, the lotus should have much less reliability. I barely ever finished a race in 67 and i think the reliability needs to be changed for short and long races so in a short sprint, it still has a high chance of not finishing. One of the races i was in in which a lotus blew, he was leading by a fair margin and when 2nd place (a ferrari) commented about him winning, the leader just said, oh the engine blew so it wasnt my fault, i should have won and everyone accepted it. So even when the lotus dies, everyone doesnt realise what happened but just say that person was a winner but because his car failed him. With a less reliable lotus, it would still be used for hot laps but in races it wold be more even. THats what i think atleast. Others think differently. Express them to me but maybe not in the form of a flame. I didnt mean for this to be a flame if anyonme interpreted it as that. Wosco

On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 10:49:04 -0500, "Doug Gordon" >I've noticed a number of "no Lotus" races on VROC lately, and can understand >why there might be this request. I think it is stupid. What is the second best car? An eagle maybe? How about a blue grid rather than green? Does it make any difference?

One of the problems is that "newbies" that have not played the game long enough to be able to stay on the track, all seem to jump into the Lotus because it is the fastest! You see a lot of green and yellow cars doing a lot of off road work. Of course in the hands of a good driver the Lotus is fast and controllable. In this case it is not so much the car as the fact it does seem to attract a bad crowd. buzard

Quoted text (13 lines)

> I've noticed a number of "no Lotus" races on VROC lately, and can understand > why there might be this request. Some may ask why the game has a car that is > apparently so superior. Well, if you're running in long Pro or GP races, it > really is not as superior as you might think because of its lack of > reliability. Lotuses can tend to blow engines, and in a Pro or better race > that ends your day. Twitchy handling can also put you into an accident that > puts you out. But in novice or intermediate, or with a shorter race length, > they are less likely to blow and then do have a significant performance > advantage. > -- > Doug Gordon > (remove "nospam" from e-mail address)

yes it does, as i heard it from a friend, the lotus is CHEAP. you get in, drive it 2 seconds faster than any other car and look fast, but anyone can look fast in a lotus. And the reliability makes up for it. What all the people on vroc wants are real drivers, not fake ones that drive lotii to look fast but that drive the brm and still are fast or the coventry. They dont want cheap drivers driving the lotus and showing off nothing, if you drive another car, and are fast, then you show your true driving skills, the lotus just makes everyone look good. At least thats what i think Wosco >On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 10:49:04 -0500, "Doug Gordon" >>I've noticed a number of "no Lotus" races on VROC lately, and can understand >>why there might be this request. >I think it is stupid. What is the second best car? An eagle maybe? How >about a blue grid rather than green? Does it make any difference?

actually that is a sensible thing to ask for i believe. Now if you ask me, you should go do your non constructive ranting on those people wanting hail bails to throw hay when you hit them and all that stuff, it isnt DUMB, its just not necessary and not needed. The lotus thing isnt needed and obviously you drive the lotus cause yo cant drive another car fast (poor you) but it is something that would be nice if it were there. Wosco

Damn you! Another papy patch wisher/lotus hater! Why don't you just take your ranting and whining somewhere dark and sit in the corner! Ben PS: <tic>

Quoted text (9 lines)

>I dont find the handling bad oin the lotus and realisticly, tell me how >often someone blows their engine in a lotus in a long race. In all of my >pro long races ive be in, my brabham and ferrari has blown up more times >than any lotii i have seen. If you shift a hundred RPM below you normally >do, it is still just as fast and more reliable. I think that the lotus is >too reliable. I think in the next patch, the lotus should have much less >reliability. I barely ever finished a race in 67 and i think the >reliability needs to be changed for short and long races so in a short >sprint, it still has a high chance of not finishing. One of the races i

was >in in which a lotus blew, he was leading by a fair margin and when 2nd place >(a ferrari) commented about him winning, the leader just said, oh the engine >blew so it wasnt my fault, i should have won and everyone accepted it. So >even when the lotus dies, everyone doesnt realise what happened but just say

Quoted text (16 lines)

>that person was a winner but because his car failed him. With a less >reliable lotus, it would still be used for hot laps but in races it wold be >more even. >THats what i think atleast. Others think differently. Express them to me >but maybe not in the form of a flame. I didnt mean for this to be a flame >if anyonme interpreted it as that. >Wosco >>I've noticed a number of "no Lotus" races on VROC lately, and can >understand >>why there might be this request. Some may ask why the game has a car that >is >>apparently so superior. Well, if you're running in long Pro or GP races,

it >>really is not as superior as you might think because of its lack of >>reliability. Lotuses can tend to blow engines, and in a Pro or better race >>that ends your day. Twitchy handling can also put you into an accident that >>puts you out. But in novice or intermediate, or with a shorter race length, >>they are less likely to blow and then do have a significant performance >>advantage. >>-- >>Doug Gordon >>(remove "nospam" from e-mail address)

I tend to agree with you Wosco, i also don't find the Lotus handling bad. In fact i think it is one of the easiest and most stable cars in GPL, in fact to me, it would be a toss up between the Lotus or the Coventry to which one i find the easiest to drive. I am using the Brabham at the moment in our on-line league, but i always feel more secure under braking in the Lotus than i do in the Brabham. I used to use the Lotus all the time, and my times in the Lotus eclipse all of my times i have achieved at the same tracks in the Brabham. I guess i have put a couple hundred of driving hours into GPL by now, and a large percentage of that was in the Lotus, and the only times i have ever blown it up was in qualifying, where i have been pushing the redline harder than i do normally. In race trim, using Pro Long setttings and driving sensibly, i have only destroyed the engine once, and that was because i missed a gear.. So to reiterate, i agree, the Lotus should be a little less reliable, but it should still be capable of seeing out full length races if driven sensibly and not abused too much. Cheers, Ron > I dont find the handling bad oin the lotus and realisticly, tell me how > often someone blows their engine in a lotus in a long race. In all of my > pro long races ive be in, my brabham and ferrari has blown up more times > than any lotii i have seen. If you shift a hundred RPM below you normally > do, it is still just as fast and more reliable. I think that the lotus is > too reliable. I think in the next patch, the lotus should have much less > reliability. I barely ever finished a race in 67 and i think the > reliability needs to be changed for short and long races so in a short > sprint, it still has a high chance of not finishing. One of the races i was > in in which a lotus blew, he was leading by a fair margin and when 2nd place > (a ferrari) commented about him winning, the leader just said, oh the engine > blew so it wasnt my fault, i should have won and everyone accepted it. So > even when the lotus dies, everyone doesnt realise what happened but just say > that person was a winner but because his car failed him. With a less > reliable lotus, it would still be used for hot laps but in races it wold be > more even. > THats what i think atleast. Others think differently. Express them to me > but maybe not in the form of a flame. I didnt mean for this to be a flame

Quoted text (9 lines)

> if anyonme interpreted it as that. > Wosco > >I've noticed a number of "no Lotus" races on VROC lately, and can > understand > >why there might be this request. Some may ask why the game has a car

that > is > >apparently so superior. Well, if you're running in long Pro or GP races, it > >really is not as superior as you might think because of its lack of > >reliability. Lotuses can tend to blow engines, and in a Pro or better race > >that ends your day. Twitchy handling can also put you into an accident that > >puts you out. But in novice or intermediate, or with a shorter race length, > >they are less likely to blow and then do have a significant performance > >advantage. > >-- > >Doug Gordon > >(remove "nospam" from e-mail address)

I'm way off fast in any car, but, like setups it seems to me to be a lot to do with how you drive. I learnt the little I know about GPL in the Eagle because I found it easier to drive than the Lotus, and feel completely at home in it at Monza. Now I can't get the Lotus within half a second of my meagre Eagle times. Yeah, in the hands of the best you may be able to squeeze a little extra from the Lotus over the Eagle but I bet Ian Lake and crew can beat me with many seconds to spare in a Coventry whatever I drive. I think it's great that all the cars behave differently - it makes the thing more realistic - the Lotus-Ford 49 was a world beater and why wouldn't we all want to drive it? You're all missing the point of a lot of the spec racing that's been happening lately. It's not because anyone hates Lotuses or Lotus drivers, it's just good fun to take a Coventry or whatever, that very few people in the race have driven and have a go. It's just fun, simply that, fun, don't take it personally. As regards Honda failing to licence their car - I wouldn't be surprised if they said "provided you make it the best". Look at TOCA, where the Honda is the best car in the simulated 1997 BTCC championship. The Renault swept to an easy victory that year with the best car so why did Codemasters make the Honda better? If this is true, then full marks to Papy for inventing the Murasama and a black mark to Honda, or their marketing department, for being too stuck up to publically admit that in racing, Hondas don't always come first. As regards blowing engines, I have blown them all, every single one, and I've never once intended to. Cheers, Paul

Quoted text (7 lines)

>yes it does, as i heard it from a friend, the lotus is CHEAP. you get in, >drive it 2 seconds faster than any other car and look fast, but anyone can >look fast in a lotus. And the reliability makes up for it. What all the >people on vroc wants are real drivers, not fake ones that drive lotii to >look fast but that drive the brm and still are fast or the coventry. They >dont want cheap drivers driving the lotus and showing off nothing, if you >drive another car, and are fast, then you show your true driving skills,

the

Quoted text (13 lines)

>lotus just makes everyone look good. >At least thats what i think >Wosco >>On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 10:49:04 -0500, "Doug Gordon" >>>I've noticed a number of "no Lotus" races on VROC lately, and can >understand >>>why there might be this request. >>I think it is stupid. What is the second best car? An eagle maybe? How >>about a blue grid rather than green? Does it make any difference?

>I bet Ian Lake and He certainly did this to me yesterday! Ben

How about having "class" races where EVERYONE drives....say a Coventry. Then you'd really separate the "who's who" amongst the drivers. Just a sugguestion...Nana

Reliability is a tricky subject -- at least when we're talking about non-forced damage ie impact/over-revving/tyre wear. Given the time a long race takes I'd hate to think any random elements were involved in a failure rather than merely the way a driver had treated his car. I'm not really sure that I want a sim to model the reliability of pit crews and components rather than the driver's skill.... which is still a bigger factor IMO than what car you're driving. Andrew McP

Andy, I'd have to say I'd agree. I think the Lotus and Eagle blow SOONER when overrevved than the Brabham, for instance, and that should be enough. If you overstep the bounds, you should pay for it. Not just a random BOOM when you're shifting 500 or 1000 revs below redline. (and I'm a Brabham driver) -Dave schwabe "if you're in control, you're not going fast enough," -- Parnelli Jones.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > I think in the next patch, the lotus should > > have much less reliability. > Reliability is a tricky subject -- at least when we're talking about non-forced damage ie > impact/over-revving/tyre wear. Given the time a long race takes I'd hate to think any random > elements were involved in a failure rather than merely the way a driver had treated his car. > I'm not really sure that I want a sim to model the reliability of pit crews and components > rather than the driver's skill.... which is still a bigger factor IMO than what car you're driving. > Andrew McP

I think that's what's going on, Nana, Cheers, Paul > How about having "class" races where EVERYONE drives....say a Coventry. Then > you'd really separate the "who's who" amongst the drivers. > Just a sugguestion...Nana

But I love the sensation of overrevving, especially in the Eagle. Too bad that it can't take it but worth it all the same :-) Cheers, Paul

Quoted text (24 lines)

> Andy, > I'd have to say I'd agree. I think the Lotus and Eagle blow SOONER when > overrevved than the Brabham, for instance, and that should be enough. If > you overstep the bounds, you should pay for it. Not just a random BOOM > when you're shifting 500 or 1000 revs below redline. (and I'm a Brabham > driver) > -Dave schwabe > "if you're in control, you're not going fast enough," -- Parnelli Jones. > > > I think in the next patch, the lotus should > > > have much less reliability. > > Reliability is a tricky subject -- at least when we're talking about non-forced damage ie > > impact/over-revving/tyre wear. Given the time a long race takes I'd hate to think any random > > elements were involved in a failure rather than merely the way a driver had treated his car. > > I'm not really sure that I want a sim to model the reliability of pit crews and components > > rather than the driver's skill.... which is still a bigger factor IMO than what car you're driving. > > Andrew McP

<<car, but, like setups it seems to me to be a lot to do with how you drive. I learnt the little I know about GPL in the Eagle because I found it easier to drive than the Lotus, and feel completely at home in it at Monza. Now I can't get the Lotus within half a second of my meagre Eagle times. >> I too learned how to drive GPL in an Eagle, with even some fooling around in a Ferrari, but I opted to go with a Lotus one day after trying it just for the heck of it. I'm no master, but I'll just keep working at it I guess. At Monza, I went from running consistant 1:30/31 in the Eagle, to 1:29/30 in the Lotus. Monaco was the only place I still used the Ferarri up until yesterday with a best of 1:31, Then I thought I'd try the Lotus, and with much tweaking of the setup, and practicing being consistant I was able to turn alot of 1:30's, and even a couple laps at 1:29. these probably arent anywhere near the hot lap sheets, but I dont frequent them, so that is really no concern of mine. GPL for me is just fun, and I try not to take it toooo seriously. I'll never be concerned with being the fastest, just making it around the track in one piece <G> G'day T

So if Mclaren start to win all the races this season will the FIA say that they can't race cause they are to fast, I doubt it. It's true most of the newbies jump in the lotus haven't got a clue how to drive fast,I'll bet most of them don't even have a car license. I've been in the lotus since day 1 and I am not going to change because a couple of ppl can't come to grips with there lap times. Paul Alesi Skunk Racing

Quoted text (8 lines)

>I think that's what's going on, Nana, >Cheers, >Paul >> How about having "class" races where EVERYONE drives....say a Coventry.

Then >> you'd really separate the "who's who" amongst the drivers. >> Just a sugguestion...Nana

On Sat, 30 Jan 1999 13:01:46 +1000, "Paul Alesi" >So if Mclaren start to win all the races this season will the FIA say that >they can't race cause they are to fast, I doubt it. You mean like they banned turbos after Honda's domination of 1985, 86 and 87? Or the way active-ride disappeared after Mansell's 1992 walkover? Or the steer-sensitive braking that McLaren had to drop after the start of last season? Or the Brabham fan-car that was banned when it drove rings around everyone at Anderstorp? What the FIA "will do" has no foundation in any logic I can think of. Cheers! John

<What the FIA "will do" has no foundation in any logic I can think of.> I do believe john that they make the rules , you must of missed that somewhere <wg>

Quoted text (21 lines)

>On Sat, 30 Jan 1999 13:01:46 +1000, "Paul Alesi" >>So if Mclaren start to win all the races this season will the FIA say that >>they can't race cause they are to fast, I doubt it. >You mean like they banned turbos after Honda's domination of 1985, 86 >and 87? >Or the way active-ride disappeared after Mansell's 1992 walkover? >Or the steer-sensitive braking that McLaren had to drop after the >start of last season? >Or the Brabham fan-car that was banned when it drove rings around >everyone at Anderstorp? >What the FIA "will do" has no foundation in any logic I can think of. >Cheers! >John

On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 12:38:37 +1000, "Paul Alesi" ><What the FIA "will do" has no foundation in any logic I can think of.> >I do believe john that they make the rules , you must of missed that >somewhere <wg> They also run a racing series. How would tennis be if Sampras' racquet was banned because he was wining all the time? The point being the FIA adjust the rules in order to come up to their preconceived idea of what the status quo should be - not through any notion of right and wrong. To whit, Schumacher's '94 DQ's and bans which left him, surprise, one point only ahead of Hill at the last race. Cheers! John

Quoted text (13 lines)

> So if Mclaren start to win all the races this season will the FIA say that > they can't race cause they are to fast, I doubt it. > It's true most of the newbies jump in the lotus haven't got a clue how to > drive fast,I'll bet most of them don't even have a car license. > I've been in the lotus since day 1 and I am not going to change because a > couple of ppl can't come to grips with there lap times. > Paul Alesi > Skunk Racing > >I think that's what's going on, Nana, > >Cheers, > >Paul

Paul, I've seen several references to no Lotus at VROC races. Personally, I couldn't care less how many Lotuses are in a race. All I care about is that the drivers can keep them on the track and out of my rear end heading into the 1st turn. If there faster than me,then pass me cleanly. jaw101.vcf < 1K Download