LOW RIDERS MUST DIE

gpl low riders must die Before going gold GPL allowed bump ***s of .5 in. This was raised because low rider setups were much faster. ie low center of gravity, less weight transference, whatever. Low riders run on bump stops. In reallity small road surface variants would bounce such a car making it undriveable. This was a release time RAS subject. GPL does not model small road surface variants. Thus, low riders are very fast in GPL and riding at 1.0 in. the lowest legal ride height. This is a problem. 1967 cars didnt run on bump stops. I like to compare my times to the fast net guys. Im a 106 at watkins, 123 at mosport with the Ferrari. Not Bad. I down loaded some low riders and in 6 laps broke by best times. I wasnt even trying too hard. I was pissed off. I dont like riding on bump stops. I like the realest sim possible. GPL. Low riders take advantage of the unmodeled road surface; its only physics flaw?. Its a lot like CHEATING. Now theres nothing to achieve. Make a low rider, learn to drive it and be fast. Boring. No more tweeking. I admire speedy net guys skill though. Same thing happened with GP2. Low riders with packers longer than suspension travel. I never could figure that out. But it was fast and killed my fun in the game. Dave could maybe fix it. Add high speed vibation term, depending on speed, that bump ***s cant damp. Not realistic but would***the low riders. Now finding ride height would be a challenge again. In the race for fastest lap times low riders are winning big. By exploiting the Flaw they are putting up amazing times. The setups dont make sense for the era modelled. Advice on setups in 4WD and Doud Arano's rules of thumb are pointless. Whats to be learned of that era of racing technology? It doesnt apply because of a flaw. Im writing to***off speedy net dudes, raise a fuss and get flamed. And maybe Papyrus can help. Anyone..., Beuller. PS Sorry for negative post, I love GPL, been waiting since indycar for such realism. I know its in the game, but Papyrus isnt EA. Their better.

Agreed! Let's maintain the realism of GPL and hone our skills at realistic ride heights. Perhaps I'll develop an online utility that will serve as "tech inspection" for on-line racers. Would anyone be interested in that?

Agreed. They're cheatin'. They know it. It's pathetic. I really hope they don't try to justify those setups (to us OR themselves). It would just be too sad. S.C. "Gritz" Petty Spectre Racing http://members.xoom.com/Gritz/Spectre/spectreracing.htm

That would kick ass, then you could have SPEC SETUP races and to make sure everyone is using the right setup, you can check it in a utility. Of course it would be hard to get a utility like that to function properly but that aint my job hehe. >Agreed! Let's maintain the realism of GPL and hone our skills at realistic >ride heights. >Perhaps I'll develop an online utility that will serve as "tech inspection" >for on-line racers. Would anyone be interested in that?

Yeah, you could do it a couple of different ways: everyone has the same setup or setups fall in certain ranges. Yikes. I'm starting to feel the need for a sanctioning body.

If you chose the Brabham and go to Monaco the default settings are .5 inch bump stops all around. If you chose the Ferrari and go to Spa you also have .5 inch bump stops all around. Have you looked at the F2 and F3 setups? Half inch bump stops are already programed into the game! buzard

Quoted text (61 lines)

> gpl low riders must die > Before going gold GPL allowed bump ***s of .5 in. This was raised because > low rider > setups were much faster. ie low center of gravity, less weight transference, > whatever. > Low riders run on bump stops. In reallity small road surface variants would > bounce > such a car making it undriveable. This was a release time RAS subject. GPL > does not model > small road surface variants. Thus, low riders are very fast in GPL and > riding at 1.0 in. > the lowest legal ride height. > This is a problem. 1967 cars didnt run on bump stops. I like to compare my > times to the > fast net guys. Im a 106 at watkins, 123 at mosport with the Ferrari. Not > Bad. I down > loaded some low riders and in 6 laps broke by best times. I wasnt even > trying too hard. I > was pissed off. > I dont like riding on bump stops. I like the realest sim possible. GPL. Low > riders take > advantage of the unmodeled road surface; its only physics flaw?. Its a lot > like CHEATING. > Now theres nothing to achieve. Make a low rider, learn to drive it and be > fast. Boring. > No more tweeking. I admire speedy net guys skill though. > Same thing happened with GP2. Low riders with packers longer than suspension > travel. > I never could figure that out. But it was fast and killed my fun in the > game. > Dave could maybe fix it. Add high speed vibation term, depending on speed, > that bump > ***s cant damp. Not realistic but would***the low riders. Now finding > ride height > would be a challenge again. > In the race for fastest lap times low riders are winning big. By exploiting > the Flaw they > are putting up amazing times. The setups dont make sense for the era > modelled. Advice on > setups in 4WD and Doud Arano's rules of thumb are pointless. Whats to be > learned of that > era of racing technology? It doesnt apply because of a flaw. > Im writing to***off speedy net dudes, raise a fuss and get flamed. And > maybe Papyrus > can help. > Anyone..., Beuller. > PS > Sorry for negative post, I love GPL, been waiting since indycar for such > realism. > I know its in the game, but Papyrus isnt EA. Their better.

Like Hawaii (not sure about NROS), a way of the host setting an "IROC" switch to force others into line. ;) > >SPEC SETUP races and to make sure everyone is using the right setup > Yeah, you could do it a couple of different ways: everyone has the same > setup or setups fall in certain ranges. > Yikes. I'm starting to feel the need for a sanctioning body. -- Marc J. Nelson SimRacing Online - http://www.simracing.com * No animals were harmed in the making of this e-mail *

The more I think about things like this, the more I look forward to NASCAR 2000. Let's face it, the net section of GPL was tacked on (quite well, I think). With NASCAR and the immense market for online racing in the US, issues such as IROC and setup fixing are sure to be addressed. And I don't even like NASCARs! Ben

Quoted text (18 lines)

>Like Hawaii (not sure about NROS), a way of the host setting an "IROC" >switch to force others into line. ;) >> >SPEC SETUP races and to make sure everyone is using the right setup >> Yeah, you could do it a couple of different ways: everyone has the same >> setup or setups fall in certain ranges. >> Yikes. I'm starting to feel the need for a sanctioning body. >-- >Marc J. Nelson >SimRacing Online - http://www.simracing.com >* No animals were harmed in the making of this e-mail *

Someone out there can probably embelish on the details, but i remember a story about Allan Jones testing a Williams with *NO* suspension (yea yea I know this wasn't in '67) his comments were something along the lines of - the car handled great but it was a bit rough to drive (Frank apparently suggested he sit on his wallet for extra padding). My point being a car on a smooth track with little or no spring travel should be faster point to point than on on a soft suspension. So use of this type of setup on a traditionally smooth track it is not really cheating is it ??. BTW - I am realy slow at GPL regarless of setup so dont think this post is me trying to justify my setup choices .... maybe with another month or so practice ......

> Someone out there can probably embelish on the details, but i remember a > story about Allan Jones testing a Williams with *NO* suspension (yea yea I > know this wasn't in '67) his comments were something along the lines of - > the car handled great but it was a bit rough to drive (Frank apparently > suggested he sit on his wallet for extra padding). LOL! Sounds like MR. Jones involved, yeah! Quite right; but the issue is who has the setups and who don't..easy fix: upload lo-ride susp. setups on a web page! Look at todays cars: pushrod suspension with "no travel"; I can imagine from looking at ( and pulling on various parts of ) a modern F1 car, that much of the actual travel is from deflection in suspension arms and the "high-profile" ***? Anyway, I think the matter of low setups isn't too important; I can do the same lap-times with different susp. height settings. As it was in those days, they usually tweaked the anti-roll bars and air pressure; the rest was left alone! So who's cheating when they dart into the pits, and come back 5 secs later with a new gearbox setup? On the lotus, they had to change the whole box!! You will be :-) All best, Matt -- ----------------------------------------- Matthew Knutsen "The Art of Legends" - GPL add-ons [link lost in import: /~kareknut/simrace1.htm] -----------------------------------------

Hey, first off, the setups are legal. Second, they are NOT running on the bump stops. Just because the static ride height and the bumper height is the same does NOT mean the car is on the bumpers. How? Well, the bump *** is at the last 1 inch of SHOCK travel. Ride height is a separate issue. I mean, the items in the setup menu say "static ride height" and "bump *** height"... not "suspension travel." So what you get is a low ride height that is NOT on the bumpers. The suspension may have 2 inches of travel instead of 3, but it's just that the ground clearance runs out before the suspension travel does. Try a 1-inch ride height at Mosport and you'll see what I mean. That is why the "low" setups are so stiff... so the suspension doesn't move a ton and hit the stops. NO ONE CAN DRIVE FULLY ON THE STOPS, NOT EVEN WOLFGANG WOEGER. And .5-inch bump stops do NOTHING over a 1-inch bumper because unless you set soft springs and bars, you will NEVER be on them. Read good chassis setup book and you'll see I'm right. Now, I'd prefer the game would have better bump modeling too, but right now it doesn't. So 1-inch ride heights work... and they make you faster. What's the harm in that? Have fun in your Monster Truck! :-) -Dave

Quoted text (61 lines)

> gpl low riders must die > Before going gold GPL allowed bump ***s of .5 in. This was raised because > low rider > setups were much faster. ie low center of gravity, less weight transference, > whatever. > Low riders run on bump stops. In reallity small road surface variants would > bounce > such a car making it undriveable. This was a release time RAS subject. GPL > does not model > small road surface variants. Thus, low riders are very fast in GPL and > riding at 1.0 in. > the lowest legal ride height. > This is a problem. 1967 cars didnt run on bump stops. I like to compare my > times to the > fast net guys. Im a 106 at watkins, 123 at mosport with the Ferrari. Not > Bad. I down > loaded some low riders and in 6 laps broke by best times. I wasnt even > trying too hard. I > was pissed off. > I dont like riding on bump stops. I like the realest sim possible. GPL. Low > riders take > advantage of the unmodeled road surface; its only physics flaw?. Its a lot > like CHEATING. > Now theres nothing to achieve. Make a low rider, learn to drive it and be > fast. Boring. > No more tweeking. I admire speedy net guys skill though. > Same thing happened with GP2. Low riders with packers longer than suspension > travel. > I never could figure that out. But it was fast and killed my fun in the > game. > Dave could maybe fix it. Add high speed vibation term, depending on speed, > that bump > ***s cant damp. Not realistic but would***the low riders. Now finding > ride height > would be a challenge again. > In the race for fastest lap times low riders are winning big. By exploiting > the Flaw they > are putting up amazing times. The setups dont make sense for the era > modelled. Advice on > setups in 4WD and Doud Arano's rules of thumb are pointless. Whats to be > learned of that > era of racing technology? It doesnt apply because of a flaw. > Im writing to***off speedy net dudes, raise a fuss and get flamed. And > maybe Papyrus > can help. > Anyone..., Beuller. > PS > Sorry for negative post, I love GPL, been waiting since indycar for such > realism. > I know its in the game, but Papyrus isnt EA. Their better.

I have no problem with a "default" setup race... if it can be enforced somehow. But the original "low rider" message still fries me! _Dave

Quoted text (12 lines)

> >Like Hawaii (not sure about NROS), a way of the host setting an "IROC" > >switch to force others into line. ;) > Yep, there are fixed / IROC setups on NROS. Usually produces some of the > most intense racing! > Cheers, > Richard > -- > We all bump into each other every day of our lives, and we render our opinions > whether we know anything or not, and if anybody catches us out we lie...

Immense? I wouldn't bet that 5% of people playing racers/sims go internet multiplayer...

> >With NASCAR and the immense market for online racing in the US, > Immense? I wouldn't bet that 5% of people playing racers/sims go > internet multiplayer... This means that 95% of our brethren must still Be Saved! :) Go forth unto all the lands... -- Matthew V. Jessick Motorsport Simulations Vehicle Dynamics Engineer (972)910-8866, Fax: (972)910-8216

I would hope (I know that Alison has asked Papyrus) that the "patch" will include a setup validator that will "correct" bump ***s lower than 1". Time will tell.... -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Simple fact - if you want to be fast in sims then you need to exploit all their shortcomings. I see no point slamming the low riders because that will simply change nothing. Ride heights of 1.00 and 1.25, even on smooth tracks, are not a good idea anyway. The car gets twitchy under braking and will break away or understeer badly in many cases where the car is heavily loaded. In any case, I'd have to say Papy missed the boat here. Hopefully this will be addressed in the patch. Probably a little research to see what the minimum ride heights actually were back then would be a good idea. If the minimum was, say, 2.5, then that should be the minimum in the sim. Something I don't remember ever being cleared up (have not been on this ng for a while) was what it means when you have max bump *** settings combined with minimum ride heights. Anyone care to recap? ie if it means that your riding on the bumps with bumps set at 1.00 and ride height at 1.00, then what's the story on ride height of 1.00 and bumps of 2.5???????????

Quoted text (61 lines)

> gpl low riders must die > Before going gold GPL allowed bump ***s of .5 in. This was raised because > low rider > setups were much faster. ie low center of gravity, less weight transference, > whatever. > Low riders run on bump stops. In reallity small road surface variants would > bounce > such a car making it undriveable. This was a release time RAS subject. GPL > does not model > small road surface variants. Thus, low riders are very fast in GPL and > riding at 1.0 in. > the lowest legal ride height. > This is a problem. 1967 cars didnt run on bump stops. I like to compare my > times to the > fast net guys. Im a 106 at watkins, 123 at mosport with the Ferrari. Not > Bad. I down > loaded some low riders and in 6 laps broke by best times. I wasnt even > trying too hard. I > was pissed off. > I dont like riding on bump stops. I like the realest sim possible. GPL. Low > riders take > advantage of the unmodeled road surface; its only physics flaw?. Its a lot > like CHEATING. > Now theres nothing to achieve. Make a low rider, learn to drive it and be > fast. Boring. > No more tweeking. I admire speedy net guys skill though. > Same thing happened with GP2. Low riders with packers longer than suspension > travel. > I never could figure that out. But it was fast and killed my fun in the > game. > Dave could maybe fix it. Add high speed vibation term, depending on speed, > that bump > ***s cant damp. Not realistic but would***the low riders. Now finding > ride height > would be a challenge again. > In the race for fastest lap times low riders are winning big. By exploiting > the Flaw they > are putting up amazing times. The setups dont make sense for the era > modelled. Advice on > setups in 4WD and Doud Arano's rules of thumb are pointless. Whats to be > learned of that > era of racing technology? It doesnt apply because of a flaw. > Im writing to***off speedy net dudes, raise a fuss and get flamed. And > maybe Papyrus > can help. > Anyone..., Beuller. > PS > Sorry for negative post, I love GPL, been waiting since indycar for such > realism. > I know its in the game, but Papyrus isnt EA. Their better.

-- Byron Forbes Captain of Team Lightning Bolt http://members.tripod.com/~HOSHUMUNGUS and [link lost in import: /~godsoe/bolt/home.htm]

On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:11:31 -0800, "Racer X" >gpl low riders must die snip> I would also like to see a "validator" patch for online racing but I don't think it will suddenly level the playing field. If you take away the ability to make ironious setups, I would be willing to bet that the fastest drivers among us will still blow by us like we are standing still. GPL is a sim in single player mode but in multiplayer mode it is a "real" racing competition. In racing , teams exploit every available technology and rule loop holes in order to have an advantage. That's just the way it is.

Is there a patch to install 30" wide tires? That's what it would take to make me not suck at GPL :) Half the fun is the trip. -Larry

Quoted text (8 lines)

> I would also like to see a "validator" patch for online racing but I > don't think it will suddenly level the playing field. If you take away > the ability to make ironious setups, I would be willing to bet that > the fastest drivers among us will still blow by us like we are > standing still. GPL is a sim in single player mode but in multiplayer > mode it is a "real" racing competition. In racing , teams exploit > every available technology and rule loop holes in order to have an > advantage. That's just the way it is.