** E3 Rumours Run Rampant **

Well, I bet youre still confused about what has been happening at the E3 Expo last week. NASCAR 3 has been delayed, NASCAR 2000 and Legends of NASCAR have been announced and TAR has been cancelled. Check out the full story at http://www.simracingnews.com/newscenter/e3coverage/headlines/191.htm Enjoy! Kenneth Verburg Webmaster High Gear Get 10% discount on ProPedal Racing Springs at [link lost in import]

- Michael

TAR Cancelled! What a shame, the sim had a lot of promise. Hopefully it will get picked up by someone, someday... I guess N2000, a possible GP3 or maybe even Driver are the next sims we can mark on our calenders. Later, John

% Well, I bet youre still confused about what has been happening at the E3 % Expo last week. NASCAR 3 has been delayed, NASCAR 2000 and Legends of NASCAR % have been announced and TAR has been cancelled. % Check out the full story at % http://www.simracingnews.com/newscenter/e3coverage/headlines/191.htm But again this article is spreading the "myth": "OK, if you take into account that the GPL engine really is very difficult to drive and that casual drivers would find it impossible to enjoy this new game." Once again, the "physics" engine used in Grand Prix Legends isn't difficult to drive! The implementation of the engine when configured to model 1967 era Formula 1 cars is extremely challenging to drive. Not difficult, challening. And it's not the engine that is challenging, but the cars that are being simulated. Please seperate the two. -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> Check out the full story at >> http://www.simracingnews.com/newscenter/e3coverage/headlines/191.htm >> Enjoy! >- Michael

I took your advice and read the whole article. I was hoping against hope that TAR would be coming out,as I have waited for it release ever since I 1st heard of it. As of now it looks like it is a dead deal. What I don't really understand as a business man,if they had a product that was in its final stages,why would you can it? Especially since the "talk" has been so positive about its release? Joel Willstein

I totally agree, there are too many people who think that it must be difficult to drive if it uses the gpl engine, but its the 67gp car thats tricky, the engine could model a go kart, and that would be nice and easy to drive....now theres an idea for a cheap and cheerfull sim..................... pez

Yes go karts are SUPER simple to drive. no skill to win. ;-) I have to remind everyone, though, that GPL doesn't implement G forces put on the driver and steering wheel feedback so how can you judge from the game that it was extremely tough to drive back then. It was much easier to drive back then than the game suggests. Do you think that the first time you got in one, you would spin it down the front straight constantly? I think that people that blame GPL's difficulty on the fact that it was 1967 are wrong. It is more on the fact that the feedback of today's computers is not good enough to handle such a complex physics engine as GPL's. So in that aspect, it is a good idea not to use the GPL engine for the Nascar game. I would rather see them hold the GPL engine in storage until our feedback system gets more advanced at which time they can bring it out and have a good base setup to work with. Thats my ideas at least. Jesse Black |I totally agree, there are too many people who think that it must be |difficult to drive if it uses the gpl engine, but its the 67gp car thats |tricky, the engine could model a go kart, and that would be nice and easy to |drive....now theres an idea for a cheap and cheerfull |sim..................... | |pez | |

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Yes go karts are SUPER simple to drive. no skill to win. ;-) I have to > remind everyone, though, that GPL doesn't implement G forces put on the > driver and steering wheel feedback so how can you judge from the game that > it was extremely tough to drive back then. It was much easier to drive back > then than the game suggests. > Do you think that the first time you got in > one, you would spin it down the front straight constantly? I think that > people that blame GPL's difficulty on the fact that it was 1967 are wrong.

Granted, not having G - forces makes it more difficult in some respects, but I don't think that GPL is unrealistically hard. I didn't spin all the way down the straight, either, even on my first lap (and I'm a fairly mediocre GPL driver). I had developed a pretty light touch on the gas from driving GP2 with F7 turned off. It was definitely hard to control the car under braking at first (had to learn to break in a straight line before turning in), but even after a little practice I could trail break to some degree. I don't think that in real life I could have been have beaten John Surtees and Bruce McLaren after only about 20 or so hours of practice. I really feel the claims about the difficulty of GPL have been GREATLY exaggerated. I had a much harder time learning to drive GP2 with no steering help, believe it or not. Dave Ewing

I agree that too many ppl are blaming the difficulty of GPL on the era. Graham Hill, second only to Jimmy Clark as a driver in that era, reckoned that those cars were easier that modern cars (1974 in this case) to drive. He says of the subject... "Racing has changed a lot since I started. The cars are faster and more streamlined with more powerful engines and better fuel and oil. Tyres are wider and the negative lift from aerofoils,. have put up cornering speeds. The brakes are better, too, allowing drivers to go deeper at the end of straights before they have to brake. Drivers have to concentrate harder and the driving is a much finer balancing act than it was. You could be rougher with the older types of cars and get away with it. Nowadays the driving has to be more accurate and precise." Graham Hill (1975) Seeing that he had experience of driving front and mid engine cars, those with and without downforce I have to say that what he had to say on the subject holds up better than anything we might wish to argue. Matthew. > Yes go karts are SUPER simple to drive. no skill to win. ;-) I have to > remind everyone, though, that GPL doesn't implement G forces put on the > driver and steering wheel feedback so how can you judge from the game that > it was extremely tough to drive back then. It was much easier to drive back > then than the game suggests. Do you think that the first time you got in > one, you would spin it down the front straight constantly? I think that > people that blame GPL's difficulty on the fact that it was 1967 are wrong. > It is more on the fact that the feedback of today's computers is not good > enough to handle such a complex physics engine as GPL's. So in that aspect, > it is a good idea not to use the GPL engine for the Nascar game. I would > rather see them hold the GPL engine in storage until our feedback system > gets more advanced at which time they can bring it out and have a good base

Quoted text (16 lines)

> setup to work with. Thats my ideas at least. > Jesse Black > |I totally agree, there are too many people who think that it must be > |difficult to drive if it uses the gpl engine, but its the 67gp car thats > |tricky, the engine could model a go kart, and that would be nice and easy > to > |drive....now theres an idea for a cheap and cheerfull > |sim..................... > | > |pez > | > |

Some of our GPL fans should be warned about this thread. It might come as a deep shock to them.

On Thu, 20 May 1999 22:31:51 +0100, "J M Tinney" >I agree that too many ppl are blaming the difficulty of GPL on the era. >Graham Hill, second only to Jimmy Clark as a driver in that era, reckoned >that those cars were easier that modern cars (1974 in this case) to drive. I think you need to read the comparisons once again. A 1967 F1 car with no grip was compared with a modern day NASCAR - vastly heavier, and with slick tyres. The problem in driving GPL is the lack of grip, a very light weight and an abundance of power. The NASCAR has power, but it also has much more grip and way heavier. When you have someone like Hill comparing the cars remember he is a driver of enormous talent. The 1967 cars lose grip much more gradually than the 1974 slick-shod beasts, and therefore would be easier to drive. For us the same would probably be true, and we would find that if a 1994 F1 car was properly modelled then it too would be _very_ difficult to drive at or near the limit. Cheers! John

On Thu, 20 May 1999 22:31:51 +0100, "J M Tinney"

Quoted text (13 lines)

>I agree that too many ppl are blaming the difficulty of GPL on the era. >Graham Hill, second only to Jimmy Clark as a driver in that era, reckoned >that those cars were easier that modern cars (1974 in this case) to drive. >He says of the subject... >"Racing has changed a lot since I started. The cars are faster and more >streamlined with more powerful engines and better fuel and oil. Tyres are >wider and the negative lift from aerofoils,. have put up cornering speeds. >The brakes are better, too, allowing drivers to go deeper at the end of >straights before they have to brake. Drivers have to concentrate harder and >the driving is a much finer balancing act than it was. You could be rougher >with the older types of cars and get away with it. Nowadays the driving has >to be more accurate and precise." >Graham Hill (1975)

On the other hand, one might say that he simply states that is was less demanding for him to become world champion in 1962 (and 1968) as a rather young man than it was to keep up with the young guns like Stewart, Fittipaldi, Lauda, Peterson in the 70, as an 45year old man, hampered by the injuries of his '69 crash. Graham Hill certainly knows a lot, but shouldn't we ask a person that - as a driver has won GPs in 3 different decades plus 3 world championships - as car constructor (co-)developed cars in 3 different decades with great success - and is still alive? Papy did. ;-) -- Matthias Flatt

OK, I give. Who is it? -Stewart? Don't know if he's developed cars in three different decades -Gurney? Don't know if he's won GP's in three different decaded -Brabham? My best guess. -Chris- ---Two wheels are better ---Proud owner of a 1998 ZX-9R --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---

OK, I give. Who is it? -Stewart? Don't know if he's developed cars in three different decades -Gurney? Don't know if he's won GP's in three different decades -Brabham? My best guess. -Chris- ---Two wheels are better ---Proud owner of a 1998 ZX-9R --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---

I'd take a guess that you're after S. Moss? I just seen him running a car at the Historic race at the Glen last year, Or the Porche 50th at the Glen last year (don't remember which)

Quoted text (25 lines)

> > Graham Hill certainly knows a lot, but shouldn't we ask a person that > > - as a driver has won GPs in 3 different decades plus 3 world > > championships > > - as car constructor (co-)developed cars in 3 different decades with > > great success > > - and is still alive? > > Papy did. ;-) > > Matthias Flatt > OK, I give. Who is it? > -Stewart? Don't know if he's developed cars in three different decades > -Gurney? Don't know if he's won GP's in three different decaded > -Brabham? My best guess. > -Chris- > ---Two wheels are better > ---Proud owner of a 1998 ZX-9R > --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- > ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---

-- ========================================= Mike Barlow of Barlow Racing? ========================================= Member of R.O.R. 1999 http://www.pivot.net/~marknjess/ror.html ========================================= Racing online with the help of...... Race Communications Association http://members.xoom.com/RCA/toc.html Holodyne Engineering Mystic Music (have Your !!Name/Address!! placed here) mikeba.vcf < 1K Download

The point is....... A MODERN F1 car is driven to the limit...... a 1967 F1 car was driven to the limit....... It was just as difficult to be number 1 in 1967 as it is today, and it's just as difficult today as it was in 1967.... are you seriously thinking that Michael Schumacher finds it 'easy' to get a pole? no, i think not, he has to push like hell to get a time... Just like Jim Clark used to when he wanted pole. Get the message? good. Driving on the limit, is driving on the limit. -- Tim "Calm Down" Wheatley ________________________________________________ Tim Wheatley "Yellow menacing helmet in the mirror" http://start.at/igps_stats IGPS - Ferrari Challenge - UKGPL - Summer Cup Driver http://drive.to/grandprixlegends http://website.lineone.net/~nascar ________________________________________________

Quoted text (14 lines)

> On Thu, 20 May 1999 22:31:51 +0100, "J M Tinney" > Graham Hill certainly knows a lot, but shouldn't we ask a person that > - as a driver has won GPs in 3 different decades plus 3 world > championships > - as car constructor (co-)developed cars in 3 different decades with > great success > - and is still alive? > Papy did. ;-) > -- > Matthias Flatt

An interesting argument there, Matthias. However, Graham Hill's F1 career was longer than Jack Brabham's (Hill 1958-1975, Brabham 1955-1970). Hill also developed his own chassis. Hill drove more Grands Prix (176 to Brabham's 126) and scored more points. Whether or not Papy consulted with Brabham or not does not change the fact that Hill (a man who unlike you or me actually drove these cars) still thought that the cars of the sixties were easier to drive than those of the seventies. Matthew.

On Fri, 21 May 1999 19:23:05 +0100, "Tim Wheatley"

Quoted text (9 lines)

>The point is....... A MODERN F1 car is driven to the limit...... >a 1967 F1 car was driven to the limit....... It was just as difficult to be >number 1 in 1967 as it is today, and it's just as difficult today as it was >in 1967.... are you seriously thinking that Michael Schumacher finds it >'easy' to get a pole? no, i think not, he has to push like hell to get a >time... Just like Jim Clark used to when he wanted pole. Get the message? >good. >Driving on the limit, is driving on the limit.

You are claiming then that driving the GPL F3 car on the limit is as difficult as driving the F1 car on the limit? Or that a Reliant Robin on the limit is as difficult as a Ferrari 355? Driving on the limit is _not_ the same irrespective of the car you are driving - the turbo era F1 cars snapped around _real_ quick when turbos were unrefined and the power burst in at once, cars with skirts were similar when the aero integrity was compromised. All cars are certainly challenging to drive on the limit, but to say they are all equally challenging is nonsense. Cheers! John

I don't think he said they were equally challenging.. He said, "When your on the limit...." Driving an F3 "on the limit" is just as hard as driving a space shuttle around a GP track, "on the limit". If you are in control of your F3 car, then you're not "on the limit". That's my take on what he's trying to say. Mike Barlow

Quoted text (26 lines)

> On Fri, 21 May 1999 19:23:05 +0100, "Tim Wheatley" > >The point is....... A MODERN F1 car is driven to the limit...... > >a 1967 F1 car was driven to the limit....... It was just as difficult to be > >number 1 in 1967 as it is today, and it's just as difficult today as it was > >in 1967.... are you seriously thinking that Michael Schumacher finds it > >'easy' to get a pole? no, i think not, he has to push like hell to get a > >time... Just like Jim Clark used to when he wanted pole. Get the message? > >good. > >Driving on the limit, is driving on the limit. > You are claiming then that driving the GPL F3 car on the limit is as > difficult as driving the F1 car on the limit? Or that a Reliant Robin > on the limit is as difficult as a Ferrari 355? > Driving on the limit is _not_ the same irrespective of the car you are > driving - the turbo era F1 cars snapped around _real_ quick when > turbos were unrefined and the power burst in at once, cars with skirts > were similar when the aero integrity was compromised. All cars are > certainly challenging to drive on the limit, but to say they are all > equally challenging is nonsense. > Cheers! > John

-- ========================================= Mike Barlow of Barlow Racing? ========================================= Member of R.O.R. 1999 http://www.pivot.net/~marknjess/ror.html ========================================= Racing online with the help of...... Race Communications Association http://members.xoom.com/RCA/toc.html Holodyne Engineering Mystic Music (have Your !!Name/Address!! placed here) mikeba.vcf < 1K Download

No, that's a very good point. The reason it is apparent that he is referring to the sixties is that as indicated in my earlier post he made that comment in 1975 talking about downforce being a contributing to the greater speeds that made, in his opinion, driving harder, as well as the fact that the 'earlier' cars you could be rougher with. If you take into account what he and all the drivers who drove them said about the difficulty of front engined cars you could, granted, preclude them. Remember he also says that he did not find the Lotus 49 s hard to drive as Clark did. This is partly down to their differing driving styles but also due to the fact that Jim Clark did no testing on the Lotus because he was unable to return to England so Hill had a lot more track time. I posted his comment to say, not so much that we should find GPL easy, rather to say that GPL ought to be no *more* difficult than a racing game using the GPL physics engine but with modern cars. Matthew. > On Fri, 21 May 1999 20:37:08 +0100, "J M Tinney" > >Whether or not Papy consulted with > >Brabham or not does not change the fact that Hill (a man who unlike you or

Quoted text (13 lines)

> >me actually drove these cars) still thought that the cars of the sixties > >were easier to drive than those of the seventies. > One thing though - was he referring to the late sixties cars or those from > the late fifties / early sixties? The quote you gave only said "Racing has > changed a lot since I started." The GPL era was actually closer to the end > of his career than the start! > 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...

Interestingly it is a similar reason that is given for the Lotus 49 (Cosworth) being a difficult car to drive. The Cosworth DFV delivered the bulk of it's considerable power with a bang at 6,500 rpm.

DADA! someone here understands english ;O) -- Tim "Calm Down" Wheatley ________________________________________________ Tim Wheatley "Yellow menacing helmet in the mirror" http://start.at/igps_stats IGPS - Ferrari Challenge - UKGPL - Summer Cup Driver http://drive.to/grandprixlegends http://website.lineone.net/~nascar ________________________________________________

Depends which threads they've been reading. I've always been of the opinion that more modern cars merely allow you to do the same tracks faster. When you're going as fast as possible in *any* car it should be hard work, whether it's a 1960's VW Beetle or a modern F1 Ferrari. The difference, as pointed to by the quote by Hill, is that the faster you're going, the more unpredictable and uncontrollable the consequences when you do finally push it over the limits. Andrew McP

On Fri, 21 May 1999 20:37:08 +0100, "J M Tinney"

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> Graham Hill certainly knows a lot, but shouldn't we ask a person that >> - as a driver has won GPs in 3 different decades plus 3 world >> championships >> - as car constructor (co-)developed cars in 3 different decades with >> great success >> - and is still alive? >> Papy did. ;-) >An interesting argument there, Matthias. However, Graham Hill's F1 career >was longer than Jack Brabham's (Hill 1958-1975, Brabham 1955-1970).

Sir Jack retired just in time before making a fool of himself, after a season with a GP win.. Graham kept on trying years after a bad crash, at a Fangio-like age (over 40), with very few success, and in uncompetitive cars (setup problems, no grip etc.). At the end, in 1975, he even failed to qualify in Monaco (were he won a record 5 times). His last GP win was there, in 1969. So, he simply does not know the 1970s cars from a winners perspective. If he would had the chance to drive the winning cars (like Lotus 72, Tyrrell, Ferrari 312T, McLaren M23), without setup problems etc., he might have had another opinion. Certainly with fewer success than Brabham, who was involved in 4 championship winning cars (1959,60,66,67). Hill was not able to built a competitive car in the short time before the airplane crash wiped out his team. Hill was no contender after 1969, so in many of his GPs he was only an "also ran". Yes. Maybe even Brabham had this opinion, after taking part in the development of wings and slicks. I hope he gave Papy good advice. But my point was that Hill had big trouble in the 1970s F1 in bad cars, while he was a winner in the 1960s in good cars, so his judgement might reflect these personal experiences to some extent. Stewart, on the other hand, won with winged cars, while his 1960s BRM years were not that successful. I would like to know how he compares his Tyrrells against a H16-BRM. -- Matthias Flatt