Technology Advances - GPL vs Everyone Else

Yes wings, suspension and HP are major, but IMO the biggest advancement would be the tires themselves. Modern tires make a huge difference.. Hans >I don't know about F1, but a couple of years ago I believe it was Car & >Driver did a skidpad, slalom, drag strip, and autocross test with several >different cars. One of the cars was an Indy Car (Alessandro Zanardi's). >The skidpad was a standard size skidpad so there was no aero advantages. It >pulled over 2 g's. The team said they could have done better with more >practice time. And just as a note for you drag racers out there, Alex ran a doing

Quoted text (14 lines)

>a normal burnout, he did donuts before his run. Not kidding, it was really >cool! >Eric Franzen >>> I keep seeing reference to "technology advances" over the last 31 years >to >>> explain the difference in the handling/driving experience of GPL vs

other >>> racing sims. Beyond tires and aero, what would those advances be, that >>> would affect handling performance? >>> If you removed the wings, scallops, and other appendages from the body of

Quoted text (15 lines)

>a >>> modern FI car and mounted bias ply treaded tires, and detuned the engine >>> (since much of hp of a modern F1 is needed to overcome the drag of aero >at >>> speed) I wonder how much different it would handle. Certainly better, >what >>> with somewhat better dampening (gas shocks and the ability to tune with >>> shock dyno's, etc.) and perhaps braking, although I'm not sure how much >>> advantage carbon carbon brakes would have without the added grip of the >>> tires. Certainly some. >>I'm not really sure, but I guess a modern F1 car without aero would handle >quite >>rotten. >>There is virtually no suspension travel. And just look at how they

scrabble

Quoted text (29 lines)

>for >>grip whenever >>they are on slow parts of a track! >>Engine mapping and diff/gearbox development has also come further, so has >the >>abilty to control >>weight bias and c/g, as well as suspension design in general. >>A modern F1 car stripped of its tyres and aero would suffer, but If a car >was >>purposely designed >>for no wings and wooden tires, it would be faster than the 60s equivalent. >The >>main problem would >>be to keep the designers *off* the downforce subject <g>... >>Nice topic! >>More..? >>:-D >>Matt >>-- >>----------------------------------------- >>Matthew Knutsen >>"The Art of Legends" - GPL add-ons >>[link lost in import: /~kareknut/simrace1.htm] >>-----------------------------------------

I keep seeing reference to "technology advances" over the last 31 years to explain the difference in the handling/driving experience of GPL vs other racing sims. Beyond tires and aero, what would those advances be, that would affect handling performance? If you removed the wings, scallops, and other appendages from the body of a modern FI car and mounted bias ply treaded tires, and detuned the engine (since much of hp of a modern F1 is needed to overcome the drag of aero at speed) I wonder how much different it would handle. Certainly better, what with somewhat better dampening (gas shocks and the ability to tune with shock dyno's, etc.) and perhaps braking, although I'm not sure how much advantage carbon carbon brakes would have without the added grip of the tires. Certainly some. With regard to modern sports/GT cars and sedans vs 1967 FI, eliminating aero and soft, radial, slicks, and the basic differences in layout of the chassis, engine, and CG seems so much different as to defy comparison. Discussion...? -Mike

: If you removed the wings, scallops, and other appendages from the body of a : modern FI car and mounted bias ply treaded tires, and detuned the engine : (since much of hp of a modern F1 is needed to overcome the drag of aero at : speed) I wonder how much different it would handle. Certainly better, what : with somewhat better dampening (gas shocks and the ability to tune with : shock dyno's, etc.) and perhaps braking, although I'm not sure how much : advantage carbon carbon brakes would have without the added grip of the : tires. Certainly some. Perhaps you could try some tests using F1 racing sim? I think in that it is possible to have accidents which will remove your front and rear wing. You might be able to get some feel by setting the wing angles to zero, using treaded tyres (slicks). From what I remember, loss of the front wing makes the car simply forget to steer. (Understeer is too mild a word - more like Nosteer) -- Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving Dept. of Mathematics (Network Control group) Uni. of York. www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

Quoted text (13 lines)

> I keep seeing reference to "technology advances" over the last 31 years to > explain the difference in the handling/driving experience of GPL vs other > racing sims. Beyond tires and aero, what would those advances be, that > would affect handling performance? > If you removed the wings, scallops, and other appendages from the body of a > modern FI car and mounted bias ply treaded tires, and detuned the engine > (since much of hp of a modern F1 is needed to overcome the drag of aero at > speed) I wonder how much different it would handle. Certainly better, what > with somewhat better dampening (gas shocks and the ability to tune with > shock dyno's, etc.) and perhaps braking, although I'm not sure how much > advantage carbon carbon brakes would have without the added grip of the > tires. Certainly some.

I'm not really sure, but I guess a modern F1 car without aero would handle quite rotten. There is virtually no suspension travel. And just look at how they scrabble for grip whenever they are on slow parts of a track! Engine mapping and diff/gearbox development has also come further, so has the abilty to control weight bias and c/g, as well as suspension design in general. A modern F1 car stripped of its tyres and aero would suffer, but If a car was purposely designed for no wings and wooden tires, it would be faster than the 60s equivalent. The main problem would be to keep the designers *off* the downforce subject <g>... Nice topic! More..? :-D Matt -- ----------------------------------------- Matthew Knutsen "The Art of Legends" - GPL add-ons http://home.sol.no/~kareknut/simrace1.htm -----------------------------------------

Quoted text (27 lines)

>> I keep seeing reference to "technology advances" over the last 31 years to >> explain the difference in the handling/driving experience of GPL vs other >> racing sims. Beyond tires and aero, what would those advances be, that >> would affect handling performance? >> If you removed the wings, scallops, and other appendages from the body of a >> modern FI car and mounted bias ply treaded tires, and detuned the engine >> (since much of hp of a modern F1 is needed to overcome the drag of aero at >> speed) I wonder how much different it would handle. Certainly better, what >> with somewhat better dampening (gas shocks and the ability to tune with >> shock dyno's, etc.) and perhaps braking, although I'm not sure how much >> advantage carbon carbon brakes would have without the added grip of the >> tires. Certainly some. >I'm not really sure, but I guess a modern F1 car without aero would handle quite >rotten. >There is virtually no suspension travel. And just look at how they scrabble for >grip whenever >they are on slow parts of a track! >Engine mapping and diff/gearbox development has also come further, so has the >abilty to control >weight bias and c/g, as well as suspension design in general. >A modern F1 car stripped of its tyres and aero would suffer, but If a car was >purposely designed >for no wings and wooden tires, it would be faster than the 60s equivalent. The >main problem would >be to keep the designers *off* the downforce subject <g>...

You guys are forgetting one important thing. Modern F1 cars have immensely greater torsional stiffness than their '67 counterparts. Also, the weight savings from thin-wall casting techniques have allowed designers to have more control over mass placement in the overall car. Don't even get me started on carbon and metal matrix composites. This thread reminds me that I really need to renew my subscription to Racecar Engineering magazine! :-0 -- Bill Mette | "A person is smart. People are dumb." MCSNet, Chicago | - K MiB

Quoted text (30 lines)

> >> I keep seeing reference to "technology advances" over the last 31 years to > >> explain the difference in the handling/driving experience of GPL vs other > >> racing sims. Beyond tires and aero, what would those advances be, that > >> would affect handling performance? > >> If you removed the wings, scallops, and other appendages from the body of a > >> modern FI car and mounted bias ply treaded tires, and detuned the engine > >> (since much of hp of a modern F1 is needed to overcome the drag of aero at > >> speed) I wonder how much different it would handle. Certainly better, what > >> with somewhat better dampening (gas shocks and the ability to tune with > >> shock dyno's, etc.) and perhaps braking, although I'm not sure how much > >> advantage carbon carbon brakes would have without the added grip of the > >> tires. Certainly some. > >I'm not really sure, but I guess a modern F1 car without aero would handle quite > >rotten. > >There is virtually no suspension travel. And just look at how they scrabble for > >grip whenever > >they are on slow parts of a track! > >Engine mapping and diff/gearbox development has also come further, so has the > >abilty to control > >weight bias and c/g, as well as suspension design in general. > >A modern F1 car stripped of its tyres and aero would suffer, but If a car was > >purposely designed > >for no wings and wooden tires, it would be faster than the 60s equivalent. The > >main problem would > >be to keep the designers *off* the downforce subject <g>... > You guys are forgetting one important thing. Modern F1 cars have > immensely greater torsional stiffness than their '67 counterparts.

Yeah, forgot that, but what does it help if you can't get any more power on the road anyway? Back to my old comparison from the BOSS race at Mondello Park (Ireland) a few years ago; the class is Formula Libre, that means, evrything with open wheels goes, including specials. An F3000 was definitely the quickest car (a 1990 Lola), the newest F1s being '94 cars. And old 70s Formula 3 cars were'nt that much slower..it was fascinating to watch! The track was terribly bumpy and twisty, our Turbo F3000 lost a handful of gears after 10 laps:) Also, Yeah, same point as I had on weight distribution. LOL! While you're at it, get "Racetech" as well, it's more suitable to mortals <g> All Best, Matt -- ----------------------------------------- Matthew Knutsen "The Art of Legends" - GPL add-ons http://home.sol.no/~kareknut/simrace1.htm -----------------------------------------

I don't know about F1, but a couple of years ago I believe it was Car & Driver did a skidpad, slalom, drag strip, and autocross test with several different cars. One of the cars was an Indy Car (Alessandro Zanardi's). The skidpad was a standard size skidpad so there was no aero advantages. It pulled over 2 g's. The team said they could have done better with more practice time. And just as a note for you drag racers out there, Alex ran a a normal burnout, he did donuts before his run. Not kidding, it was really cool! Eric Franzen >> I keep seeing reference to "technology advances" over the last 31 years to >> explain the difference in the handling/driving experience of GPL vs other >> racing sims. Beyond tires and aero, what would those advances be, that >> would affect handling performance? >> If you removed the wings, scallops, and other appendages from the body of a >> modern FI car and mounted bias ply treaded tires, and detuned the engine >> (since much of hp of a modern F1 is needed to overcome the drag of aero at >> speed) I wonder how much different it would handle. Certainly better, what >> with somewhat better dampening (gas shocks and the ability to tune with >> shock dyno's, etc.) and perhaps braking, although I'm not sure how much >> advantage carbon carbon brakes would have without the added grip of the >> tires. Certainly some. >I'm not really sure, but I guess a modern F1 car without aero would handle quite >rotten. >There is virtually no suspension travel. And just look at how they scrabble for >grip whenever >they are on slow parts of a track! >Engine mapping and diff/gearbox development has also come further, so has the >abilty to control >weight bias and c/g, as well as suspension design in general. >A modern F1 car stripped of its tyres and aero would suffer, but If a car was >purposely designed >for no wings and wooden tires, it would be faster than the 60s equivalent. The

Quoted text (17 lines)

>main problem would >be to keep the designers *off* the downforce subject <g>... >Nice topic! >More..? >:-D >Matt >-- >----------------------------------------- >Matthew Knutsen >"The Art of Legends" - GPL add-ons >http://home.sol.no/~kareknut/simrace1.htm >-----------------------------------------

Certainly the modern monocoque would have greater torsional rigidity than the 67 cars, and the use of the engine as a stressed member is way more advanced (I think in 67 this had begun?). Weight should be down due to finite element analysis and the resultant limit state design using the appropriate materials - materials research is one of the key areas of advancement IMO. The question could also be split - a modern F1 with wings removed and *** tyres versus a purpose designed no-downforce-crappy-tyre beast. The latter would likely be a bunch lighter due to the reduced forces acting on it as well as having a suspension optimised using modern techniques to take full advantage (empty disadvantage?) of the crappy tyres and no downforce. Ben

> : If you removed the wings, scallops, and other appendages from the body of a > : modern FI car and mounted bias ply treaded tires, and detuned the engine > : (since much of hp of a modern F1 is needed to overcome the drag of aero at > : speed) Does any of the teams use flexing wings. Is it allowed? When the car is going fast the wing would be pressed back/down by the air pressure and give less drag and downforce. The stiffness of the wing would determine the how large the decrease in drag and downforce would be as speed increases. -- Torgeir Foss Oslo, Norway

:> :> : If you removed the wings, scallops, and other appendages from the body of a :> : modern FI car and mounted bias ply treaded tires, and detuned the engine :> : (since much of hp of a modern F1 is needed to overcome the drag of aero at :> : speed) : Does any of the teams use flexing wings. Is it allowed? Ferrari used a flexible front wing to the end of '97 but it was, I believe, banned as a "movable aerodynamic device" - I think the FIA now specify a maximum degree of flexion allowed in wings. -- Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving Dept. of Mathematics (Network Control group) Uni. of York. www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html

Flexible rear wings got Team Menard in trouble at one point in last years IRL season. -don

On Wed, 3 Feb 1999 05:03:30 -0800, "Mike Vanlandingham" >I keep seeing reference to "technology advances" over the last 31 years to >explain the difference in the handling/driving experience of GPL vs other >racing sims. Beyond tires and aero, what would those advances be, that >would affect handling performance? Apart from the fact that both cars have 4 wheels and a steering wheel they don't have much in common anymore even if you would remove wings and replace the tyres with something else. Even without the wings the underside of a F1 car produces an incredible amount of downforce and the whole bodywork serves aerodynamic purposes. Ride height is very low and suspension is extremely stiff, brakes are just a totally different dimension either and the engine works in a completely different way as well producing not only more hp but also twice as much rpm at relatively little torque. Keep in mind we're talking about 30+ years of technology here. And F1 is certainly the most sophisticated and technical advanced motorsport today. --Tel

Quoted text (21 lines)

>On Wed, 3 Feb 1999 05:03:30 -0800, "Mike Vanlandingham" >>I keep seeing reference to "technology advances" over the last 31 years to >>explain the difference in the handling/driving experience of GPL vs other >>racing sims. Beyond tires and aero, what would those advances be, that >>would affect handling performance? >Apart from the fact that both cars have 4 wheels and a steering wheel >they don't have much in common anymore even if you would remove wings >and replace the tyres with something else. Even without the wings the >underside of a F1 car produces an incredible amount of downforce and >the whole bodywork serves aerodynamic purposes. Ride height is very >low and suspension is extremely stiff, brakes are just a totally >different dimension either and the engine works in a completely >different way as well producing not only more hp but also twice as >much rpm at relatively little torque. Keep in mind we're talking about >30+ years of technology here. And F1 is certainly the most >sophisticated and technical advanced motorsport today. >--Tel

One more minor improvement that has been overlooked would be the speed of the transmission, shifting in thousands of a second, instead of tenths. Scott

DPHII wrote Scuderia Ferrari also tried this and got into trouble. The idea is really simple and excellent, but I somehow agree on making this illegal. You could almost create suspension for the wings, to maximize the effect of them. Or even more... I/O like in the good old active suspension days that would angle the wings perfectly for each corners.. and why not different for each side of the car ;-) -= Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard/Nas-Frank> -= NROS Nascar sanctioned Guide http://www.nros.com/ -= SimRacing Online http://www.simracing.com/ -= Official mentally retarded guy of r.a.s. -= May the Downforce be with you... "People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realise how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Back in the mid '80s Lotus tried a similar thing with the actual underside of the car - it curved towards the ground at high speed, causing the grip to increase. Hence the suggestion that Senna's "Whole car was like a qualifying tyre". Cheers! Graeme Nash http://www.karisma1.demon.co.uk ICQ# 11257824 1998 Xoom GP2 League Champion

Wasn't that the Lotus 88? It was well before Senna, tho' (1981). Very interesting, two chassis (es?). Was Ferrari's "double-floor" concept of a few years back (1992?) similar?

Quoted text (16 lines)

>>Scuderia Ferrari also tried this and got into trouble. >Back in the mid '80s Lotus tried a similar thing with the actual >underside of the car - it curved towards the ground at high speed, >causing the grip to increase. Hence the suggestion that Senna's "Whole >car was like a qualifying tyre". >Cheers! >Graeme Nash >http://www.karisma1.demon.co.uk >ICQ# 11257824 >1998 Xoom GP2 League Champion

No, this was the 1986 car, the 98T(?). The twin-chassis car was totally different. A real shame it was outlawed, since it never contrevened any rules. I gess the other teams were just scared.... As for the twin chassis Ferrari, I don't know that much about it. All I know is that it was -shite- ! -- Cheers! Graeme Nash http://www.karisma1.demon.co.uk ICQ# 11257824 1998 Xoom GP2 League Champion

> >Wasn't that the Lotus 88? It was well before Senna, tho' (1981). Very > >interesting, two chassis (es?). Was Ferrari's "double-floor" concept of a > >few years back (1992?) similar? > No, this was the 1986 car, the 98T(?). The twin-chassis car was totally > different. A real shame it was outlawed, since it never contrevened any > rules. I gess the other teams were just scared.... Correct, the twin chassi Lotus was initially tested by Nigel Mansell. I believe the car was so stiff, that humans would not be capable of driving it...:) As for the car being a "qualifying tyre" - this would refer to all the cars of those days- they had "handgrenade" engines, and tires that lived for one hard lap. I remember seeing them at Brands Hatch in 96. In qual, they came round slowly, and the next lap was kamikaze. They stuffed so much fuel through those engines, it looked like they were followed by a swarm (?) of bees.... Just imagine; The 1.5 litre BMW engine in the benetton was pushing out over 1300 BHP for a few laps..some of the engines were even Monoblocks, the cyl. head and block was cast in one piece to take the strain from the crazy boost pressure (over 5 bar at worst...) Correct again (<g>) - I believe the car was dubbed "F-15" because it had huge rectangular air intakes that were above the floor of the car. What they tried to do was to produce a venturi effect by having the air flow over and under the main floor of the car. Never worked, though.... Matt -- ----------------------------------------- Matthew Knutsen "The Art of Legends" - GPL add-ons http://home.sol.no/~kareknut/simrace1.htm -----------------------------------------

I though the whole point of the two chasses (sp?) was that whilst the outer one could give the toughest, quickest ride, the inner one was softly sprung and gave a smooth ride for the driver? I presume you mean '86...... hehe, I was there too, but I was only 4 years old :-) P.S I love your track graphics - I finally got around to downloading them last night. Great work! -- Cheers! Graeme Nash http://www.karisma1.demon.co.uk ICQ# 11257824 1998 Xoom GP2 League Champion

> >Correct, the twin chassi Lotus was initially tested by Nigel Mansell. I > >believe the > >car was so stiff, that humans would not be capable of driving it...:) > I though the whole point of the two chasses (sp?) was that whilst the > outer one could give the toughest, quickest ride, the inner one was > softly sprung and gave a smooth ride for the driver? Not sure here, but I thought the "outside" chassi generated downforce, and pulled on the "inside", thus making for a harsh ride. Could check my facts, tho:) oops, well, I wasn't that old a man myself (before the age of legal pints!) Hrrmm..maybe I'm getting old <g> Thanks! :-D Matt -- ----------------------------------------- Matthew Knutsen "The Art of Legends" - GPL add-ons http://home.sol.no/~kareknut/simrace1.htm -----------------------------------------