Just what _is_ a realistic setup?

Ok, I've seen some the low-rider setups some of these really fast guys use but what's the point? These cars didn't do that. Alison Hines' Ferrari setups are a lot closer to reality but I question even these settings as being beyond what the engineers did during that era. 150-180 ARB's? I don't think so. I don't know though. Does anyone know for sure just what spring rates are realistic? I believe the 70 to 90 pound range is authentic but again I'm not positive. What I am positive about is that these cars were never less than 3.5 to 4 inches off the ground. If you look at the photos or a movie such as Grand Prix, these cars look more like they were at least 4 inches at rest. I would like to see a replay of a race where everyone used an authentic setup and _then_ compare the times to what Clark and Hill and Jack and Dan could do. That would be a valid comparison. Kent Hosterman

Only a person who developed and setup the cars in those days would truely know the proper setup characteristics of a 1967 grand prix car, and how they affected the car. And only those ppl could say weather the setup in gpl is truely accurate. Some gpl drivers, refer to certain setups has "realistic setups", but to me all gpl setups are realistic. It seems all setups will be somewhat "unrealistic" in the eyes of the purists, unless they are the ones that developed the setup. Of _course_ using their knowledge of being able to setup real 1967 grand prix cars <sarcasm> I've heard alison's ferrari setups refered to as "realistic", but is it realistic to max out spring rates, or to have arb set so high??? I've got no idea, cause I never setup a real 1967 gp car. I believe every setup in gpl should be admired for what they are, A setup for a _simulated_ car, that suits a drivers taste, be it in speed or drivability etc Frankly, everyone can keep moaning about what is "realistic" in terms of a 1967 gp cars til the cows come home, but nobody truely knows....only the ppl who drove or where around those cars know. Oh, one last thing for the purists <G> (Essay question ;) There are purists who believe they "know" what a realistic setup should look like, and thus believe everyone who does not use their "realistic" setup is cheating the simulation. Does this mean that they do not drive or race at kyalami because they are _unrealistically_ quick compared to 1967 laptimes round kya? And thus they are cheating the simulation? i.e. Real 1967 Kyalami Race results Pole: J.Brabham 1:28.3 Fastest Lap: D.Hulme 1:29.9 Ian /\ The truth is out there :) /\

Not really since the real drivers would be totally crazy to drive so close to the kerbs and so close to the limit of the car as the GPL drivers do. The sim racer will allways be faster in their sims than the real driver at the real track. The talents are equal for each sport, but the practice these sim racers put in doesn't compare to the little track time real drivers get. I think we got too little grip in GPL, compared to what the real cars had back then... /Christer > I would like to see a replay of a race where everyone used >an authentic setup and _then_ compare the times to what Clark and Hill and >Jack and Dan could do. That would be a valid comparison. >Kent Hosterman

Spring rates in the mid to late 1960s (3 litre era) were typically around the 170 pounds per inch mark. Ride heights were, as previiously mentioned, rarely below 4 inches fully laden. Adjustments during practise sessions were usually limited to coarse variation of the suspensions and steering settings. Adjustments between races (unless the car was undergoing a major change) were usually centred on gear and final-drive ratios. Setting up a car was "seat of the pants" stuff.....strong feedback from the driver and, in a lot of cases, the driver also possessed a strong engineering knowledge.....Jack Brabham, Bruce McLaren and Mike Parkes are three that immediately come to mind., Alisons setups are certainly a lot closer to reality than these low-rider arrangements that mimic modern F1 setups....NOT those of thiry years ago. In response to the Kyalami example, Ian, I have deliberately adjusted the slowest AI performance to be representative of the average lap times (for each circuit) from the 1967 season. That means that, for example, if I am going to race Kyalami then I'll load the appropriate gpl_ai.ini file for that track prior to booting into the game. So yes....I AM reaching for a simulation that is as close as I can get to the realism of the period represented. (Hopefully GPaL will make the process of so doing a little easier!) If I could also receate, race-by-race, the correct grid positions than I would be even happier! -- Regards, Bruce. ------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------

Crap.....with respect, Christer!! Allow me a quote:- "A racing car should always have more power than its chassis can comfortably handle". (Tony Brooks). Allow me another quote:- "The GP cars of 1967 - or most of them anyway - had emphatically more power than their chassis could handle and the complete absence of downforce made them simply wonderful to watch." (Nigel Roebuck). -- Regards, Bruce. ------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------

Errr, why do you setup the car? To get the most of it. They did that in 1967, we do it in GPL. So, whatever setup you use, it is always realistic. Only the environment is different... Remco

Quoted text (12 lines)

>Ok, I've seen some the low-rider setups some of these really fast guys use >but what's the point? These cars didn't do that. Alison Hines' Ferrari >setups are a lot closer to reality but I question even these settings as >being beyond what the engineers did during that era. 150-180 ARB's? I don't >think so. I don't know though. Does anyone know for sure just what spring >rates are realistic? I believe the 70 to 90 pound range is authentic but >again I'm not positive. What I am positive about is that these cars were >never less than 3.5 to 4 inches off the ground. If you look at the photos or >a movie such as Grand Prix, these cars look more like they were at least 4 >inches at rest. I would like to see a replay of a race where everyone used >an authentic setup and _then_ compare the times to what Clark and Hill and >Jack and Dan could do. That would be a valid comparison.

: Crap.....with respect, Christer!! : Allow me a quote:- "A racing car should always have more power than its : chassis can comfortably handle". (Tony Brooks). : Allow me another quote:- "The GP cars of 1967 - or most of them anyway - had : emphatically more power than their chassis could handle and the complete : absence of downforce made them simply wonderful to watch." (Nigel Roebuck). Proving what? That tells you nothing about the grip level in GPL and whether it is too high or too low. Unquestionably the cars of 67 had a lot of power and lacked grip - but did they lack grip to the extent that the GPL model does. I don't think so. I believe GPL is modelling the chassis as rigid which it certainly was not (amongst other things). Also Nigel Roebuck isn't the most reliable source on earth - if you listen to Nigel Roebuck every car should be from the 60s and every driver should be Alain Prost. :-) -- 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

So thumbs up for this Nigel then! :) (Who is this guy by the way?) Andre

Roebuck). I said this Bruce in a thread and you blasted me, so what's the point ? You disapproved me when I said that the 1967 era's of cars had too much power for their chassis (the whole myth that the GPL physics for N3 would be too difficult for the mass), and now approve ? Im lost here sorry ;-P If the guys at Papyrus give us the tools to make those appropriate setup tweaking, it because they are realistic of that era. They made research, and probably know more than any of us on that subject. -- -- 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."

Well said Bruce. GPL's reason for existing was its 'authenticity' . They may have got it wrong by allowing 'low rider' setups etc, and wrong graphics and history. But they did do a damm fine job otherwise. We who do 'give a damm' should be keeping up the message that authenticity only can add to the sim. The new Papy ride height addition to their patch goes somewhere along the line. But at only 2.5 inch for minimum ride height is way short of the mark. I have tried some of the 'low-rider' setups and they are quick, but only for a few laps. Try the higher setups like Alisons, and everything is not only as quick, but for lap after lap. Measuring the original plans for the '67 Lotus 49, the rear ride height to the end of the monocque chassis was 4.425 inch, and the front of the monocque, 3.835 inch, as near as I could make out. The Ferrari 312 of the same year was 4.5, and 3.9 inch respectively. So maybe somebody should come up with a patch that limits ride height to say 3.5inch minimum, and we could start a 'REAL GPL' symposium. Steve

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Spring rates in the mid to late 1960s (3 litre era) were typically around >the 170 pounds per inch mark. >Ride heights were, as previiously mentioned, rarely below 4 inches fully >laden. >Adjustments during practise sessions were usually limited to coarse >variation of the suspensions and steering settings. Adjustments between >races (unless the car was undergoing a major change) were usually centred

on

Quoted text (29 lines)

>gear and final-drive ratios. >Setting up a car was "seat of the pants" stuff.....strong feedback from the >driver and, in a lot of cases, the driver also possessed a strong >engineering knowledge.....Jack Brabham, Bruce McLaren and Mike Parkes are >three that immediately come to mind., >Alisons setups are certainly a lot closer to reality than these low-rider >arrangements that mimic modern F1 setups....NOT those of thiry years ago. >In response to the Kyalami example, Ian, I have deliberately adjusted the >slowest AI performance to be representative of the average lap times (for >each circuit) from the 1967 season. >That means that, for example, if I am going to race Kyalami then I'll load >the appropriate gpl_ai.ini file for that track prior to booting into the >game. >So yes....I AM reaching for a simulation that is as close as I can get to >the realism of the period represented. (Hopefully GPaL will make the >process of so doing a little easier!) >If I could also receate, race-by-race, the correct grid positions than I >would be even happier! >-- >Regards, >Bruce. >------------------------------ >--------------------------------------------------------------------

>If the guys at Papyrus give us the tools to make those appropriate setup >tweaking, it because they are realistic of that era. They made research, >and probably know more than any of us on that subject. I think that is an assumption that is not necessarily valid. There is clearly no evidence whatsoever that these cars ever ran "low-rider" setups. The fact that Papy allowed the cars to be setup that way was a mistake IMO and I think they acknowledge this via the fact that they are going to a 2.5" (still not enough)limit in the patch. I agree with Bruce and others in the pursuit of the most realistic ie.; authentic sim possible. If one does not seek realism as a simulator then Grand Prix Legends becomes just another game and that does not do GPL justice. Kent Hosterman

...and ^ that should be "I am fast with them only for few laps"...I know that some other guys can be fast with them for a manymanymanymany laps...it's _you_ who overheats the tires, not the setup.

setups. Well, of course I see your point. But IMHO it's not because they didn't used those setups back in the days that it means they couldn't had used those settings. Who knows what maximum and minimum settings the teams could use for about everything (spring rate, gearing, etc..). Im sure Papyrus made research on this aspect, I hope they did not throw random min/max settings. But of course they might have had for certain settings like the ride-height, since the minimum height was changed during the beta testing stage. -- -- 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."

Isn't the most reliable source for what, Richard? Information gleaned personally by him from his association with the teams and drivers? First-hand accounts of what went on at the race meetings both on the track and in the pits? Just because he has a penchant (as I do) for the Grands Prix of the 1960s doesn't mean that he is ill-informed. He is extremely well informed, in fact.

Sorry, Francois.....my error in interpretation. I thought that you were saying that Papyrus had incorrectly modelled TOO MUCH power for the cars. I didn't read it as you have now made clear....that the real cars back then were actually over-powered. My apology for the confusion. -- Regards, Bruce. ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Allow me another quote:- "The GP cars of 1967 - or most of them anyway - > had > > emphatically more power than their chassis could handle and the complete > > absence of downforce made them simply wonderful to watch." (Nigel > Roebuck). > I said this Bruce in a thread and you blasted me, so what's the point ? You > disapproved me when I said that the 1967 era's of cars had too much power > for their chassis (the whole myth that the GPL physics for N3 would be too > difficult for the mass), and now approve ? Im lost here sorry ;-P > If the guys at Papyrus give us the tools to make those appropriate setup > tweaking, it because they are realistic of that era. They made research, > and probably know more than any of us on that subject. > -- > -- 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."

Thank you, Stephen. It is, I realise, a case of "to each, his own" but as I lived and spectated (from afar....except for the Tasman Cup, which was from very near!) through that period I just like to have my little GPL world set up to suit historical accuracy. Because I only race off-line, I can do what I like in regard to recreating an accurate simulation and that includes everything from the car setups to the on-track graphics. This sim has not ceased to delight me snce I bought it. -- Regards, Bruce. ------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll try them again then. But only once more before scrapping the idea for ever and going to 3.5 inch minimum. Could you find out from the people you 'know', what sort of times they are doing with low-riders for a full race distance in Pro mode? I am sure everyone would be interested. Steve >...and ^ that should be "I am fast with them only for few laps"...I know >that some other guys can >be fast with them for a manymanymanymany laps...it's _you_ who overheats the >tires, not the setup.

"if it's sitting on the bumpstops, it doesn't matter what springs and bars and shocks are used. The results will be confusing and frustrating"-Mark Donohue The reason the above qoute doesn't hold more importance in regards to GPL is the fact that there are no high frequency bumps modeled in the sim. Trying to drive a real car (67 GP car or otherwise) on the bump ***s (i.e. 1.00 ride height in the sim) would result in a car that would be quite unpredictable and I would assume very uncomfortable. Well, if you're referring to the ride height, then Alison's setups are more realistic (or authentic if you prefer). As far as spring rates etc. that I am sure would be more a matter of personal taste, although it is certainly possible that there would have been a popular trend as regards to these settings as there usually is in any era of motorsport. It seems that the major advantage to be gained from running a low ride height is that there is less weight transfer in regards to pitch and roll. Are they historically accurate? certainly not. Are they a true representation of how a real car would behave under similar real world circumstances? (i.e. baby's *** smooth surfaces)...I don't think so, but who can really say? Since there is no ruling body to arbitrate whether or not this setting or that is cheating, there will probably continue to be a lot of quibbling back and forth. On a personal note, I think that the cars are far more interesting at authentic ride heights and are in fact more of a challenge to get low laptimes in. I think this should be reflected in future hotlap compettitions as low laptimes with high ride height should be interesting to see, and more difficult to attain. TJSB

Quoted text (10 lines)

> There are purists who believe they "know" what a realistic setup > should look like, and thus believe everyone who does not use their > "realistic" setup is cheating the simulation. > Does this mean that they do not drive or race at kyalami because they > are _unrealistically_ quick compared to 1967 laptimes round kya? And > thus they are cheating the simulation? > i.e. Real 1967 Kyalami Race results > Pole: J.Brabham 1:28.3 Fastest Lap: D.Hulme 1:29.9

I noticed this as well, but given that the times at all the other tracks were more in line with the times being done in GPL, perhaps there's another explanation: they had wet weather that day the Kyalami track is badly simulated: the grip level of the surface is wrong some of the corners are the wrong shape Any of these could have a big impact on the times - it doesn't necessarily mean the cars themselves are badly simulated.

Quoted text (25 lines)

> > There are purists who believe they "know" what a realistic setup > > should look like, and thus believe everyone who does not use their > > "realistic" setup is cheating the simulation. > > Does this mean that they do not drive or race at kyalami because they > > are _unrealistically_ quick compared to 1967 laptimes round kya? And > > thus they are cheating the simulation? > > i.e. Real 1967 Kyalami Race results > > Pole: J.Brabham 1:28.3 Fastest Lap: D.Hulme 1:29.9 > I noticed this as well, but given that the times at all the other tracks > were more in line with the times being done in GPL, perhaps there's > another explanation: > they had wet weather that day > the Kyalami track is badly simulated: > the grip level of the surface is wrong > some of the corners are the wrong shape > Any of these could have a big impact on the times - it doesn't > necessarily mean the cars themselves are badly simulated.

If I remember correctly, it is because of the elevation. 1 mile above sea level, the engines were starved for oxygen. TJSB

Quoted text (28 lines)

>> > There are purists who believe they "know" what a realistic setup >> > should look like, and thus believe everyone who does not use their >> > "realistic" setup is cheating the simulation. >> > Does this mean that they do not drive or race at kyalami because they >> > are _unrealistically_ quick compared to 1967 laptimes round kya? And >> > thus they are cheating the simulation? >> > i.e. Real 1967 Kyalami Race results >> > Pole: J.Brabham 1:28.3 Fastest Lap: D.Hulme 1:29.9 >> I noticed this as well, but given that the times at all the other tracks >> were more in line with the times being done in GPL, perhaps there's >> another explanation: >> they had wet weather that day >> the Kyalami track is badly simulated: >> the grip level of the surface is wrong >> some of the corners are the wrong shape >> Any of these could have a big impact on the times - it doesn't >> necessarily mean the cars themselves are badly simulated. >If I remember correctly, it is because of the elevation. 1 mile above sea >level, the engines were starved for oxygen.

AFAIK, Papyrus used the 1968 laptimes, because the cars simulated in GPL didn't race in the 1967 Kyalami event - they weren't ready. Remco

> > > Real 1967 Kyalami Race results > > > Pole: J.Brabham 1:28.3 Fastest Lap: D.Hulme 1:29.9 > If I remember correctly, it is because of the elevation. 1 mile above sea > level, the engines were starved for oxygen. Well, Papy really missed a trick there - they'd have had real brownie points for simulating the effect of reduced atmospheric pressure! Ironically it's probably quite easy to do, as well!

Quoted text (14 lines)

>> i.e. Real 1967 Kyalami Race results >> Pole: J.Brabham 1:28.3 Fastest Lap: D.Hulme 1:29.9 >I noticed this as well, but given that the times at all the other tracks >were more in line with the times being done in GPL, perhaps there's >another explanation: > they had wet weather that day > the Kyalami track is badly simulated: > the grip level of the surface is wrong > some of the corners are the wrong shape

The discrepancy of the times for the 1967 race at Kyalami and the times in the game has been explained on this newsgroup a thousand times - The race was held in the first week of 1967. The teams were still running their 1966 cars. The debut of the Lotus 49 was still several months away. Ferrari didn't even attend. In GPL, you get the cars at their peak during the season for all the tracks. If you look at the results to the 1968 race at Kyalami, when they were still using the 1967 cars, you will find the times to be very close to what the game models. Dave Ewing

No problem ;-) I was just wondering, since it confused me hehe. But going into this, I guess when you master the GPL cars, you don't find them much over-powered in a sense that the same over-power gives you a great control over a car. It's easy to tell when you make a switch from the GP cars to per example the trainee car. Sure, they are much different, but you really try to get the same rage and pure power of those GP cars when driving the F3. And you can't :) -- -- 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."

>Allow me a quote:- "A racing car should always have more power than its >chassis can comfortably handle". (Tony Brooks). >Allow me another quote:- "The GP cars of 1967 - or most of them anyway - had >emphatically more power than their chassis could handle and the complete >absence of downforce made them simply wonderful to watch." (Nigel Roebuck). I totally agree with those sentiments! It's what makes ice-racing so much fun. We race inexpensive stock Chevettes on ice. Take a low-powered vehicle like a Chevette, put it on a frozen lake with normal *** tires, and you've got yourself a race car! Under those conditions, even a Chevette has more than enough power to spin its wheels in any gear. People always ask, "How fast can you go on ice?" But top speed is completely irrelevant as long as everyone is racing under the same conditions. Acceleration and deceleration is all that counts. Top speed is merely a function of how long the straightaways are. Typically top speed is about 70 mph (110 km/h), but it takes a while to get there and then you have to start braking a LONG way before reaching the next corner! My only complaint is that ice-racing circuits are usually devoid of any elevation changes. On the other hand, judging from how often I crash at the Nurburgring in GPL, maybe that's not such a bad thing. See <[link lost in import: /~trauttf/Ice/]> for ice-race stories and in-car videos. -Ferdinand-

I'm basing my conclusion on the belief that 1. The drivers of the era are as talent in real F1 as the top sim racers today are in sim racing. 2. The top sim racers cant die in GPL, which results in driving extremly close to kerbs and track edges, all the time, everywhere. They can also try out things the real driver wouldn't even think of, cause of the danger level. 3. The top sim racers practice a lot more and a lot more frequent, which results in knowing every inch of the tracks. My practice time alone as sim racer equals almost 1000 real F1 races, or almost 20 real F1 seasons (50 race like sessions per year), in time that is. 4. The weather is always the same in GPL, which makes the tracks work exactly the same from race to race, which makes number 3 so much more significant. Number 2 alone should result in the top sim racers driving circles around the pole times of 1967. Number 3 should just add to this. When looking at the pole times of -67 I find that the top sim racers do not drive circles around them, thus something must be wrong. The top sim racers are also using somewhat unrealistic setups (low rider should give more grip if the physics in GPL is correct) to reach their times and they are also speed shifting, which they didn't do back in -67. Taking all this into consideration makes me wonder about the grip levels in GPL :o). /Christer, thankful for the respect :o)

Quoted text (22 lines)

> Crap.....with respect, Christer!! > Allow me a quote:- "A racing car should always have more power than its > chassis can comfortably handle". (Tony Brooks). > Allow me another quote:- "The GP cars of 1967 - or most of them anyway - had > emphatically more power than their chassis could handle and the complete > absence of downforce made them simply wonderful to watch." (Nigel Roebuck). > -- > Regards, > Bruce. > ------------------------------ > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I think we got too little grip in GPL, compared to what the real cars had > back > > then...

-- http://home.swipnet.se/~w-41236/ (Read all about the "Global online racing"-proposal under "For developers". Read it a couple of times, cause noone has understood it the first time they've read it yet :o)).

I've read somewhere that back then they pretty much kept the setup from one track to the other only changing the gear ratios... /Christer

Quoted text (21 lines)

> Errr, why do you setup the car? To get the most of it. They did that > in 1967, we do it in GPL. So, whatever setup you use, it is always > realistic. Only the environment is different... > Remco > >Ok, I've seen some the low-rider setups some of these really fast guys use > >but what's the point? These cars didn't do that. Alison Hines' Ferrari > >setups are a lot closer to reality but I question even these settings as > >being beyond what the engineers did during that era. 150-180 ARB's? I don't > >think so. I don't know though. Does anyone know for sure just what spring > >rates are realistic? I believe the 70 to 90 pound range is authentic but > >again I'm not positive. What I am positive about is that these cars were > >never less than 3.5 to 4 inches off the ground. If you look at the photos or > >a movie such as Grand Prix, these cars look more like they were at least 4 > >inches at rest. I would like to see a replay of a race where everyone used > >an authentic setup and _then_ compare the times to what Clark and Hill and > >Jack and Dan could do. That would be a valid comparison.

-- http://home.swipnet.se/~w-41236/ (Read all about the "Global online racing"-proposal under "For developers". Read it a couple of times, cause noone has understood it the first time they've read it yet :o)).

It's time to change your sig, Richard. It has been there too long now and it really isn't very good either ;o). /Christer "Imagination is more important than knowledge" /Einstein

Quoted text (18 lines)

> >In response to the Kyalami example, Ian, I have deliberately adjusted the > >slowest AI performance to be representative of the average lap times (for > >each circuit) from the 1967 season. > Aren't you giving yourself an unfair advantage if you are using the 67 cars > whilst the AI are constrained to the speeds set with the 66 ones? > >If I could also receate, race-by-race, the correct grid positions than I > >would be even happier! > But you wouldn't be able to race in that case.... <vbg> > 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...

On Mon, 28 Jun 1999 23:39:35 +0100, "Stephen Barnett" <snip> One can very fast AND consistant with the low-rider setups in a race also. Usually the guys who are on top in the hotlaps-pages are the most consistant and fastest in long online-races even with the low-rider setups. Alison's setups are great for those who can't or don't want to drive with the low-rider setups in longer races and for beginners. But for example, her new Ferrari setups are just too pushy for me and I can't go faster than with my old setups. I also tend to crash more with Alison's setups because they don't suit my driving style and I'm trying to push the car a bit too much. I would like GPL as realistic as possible, but in the end it's just a game and I want to have fun with it. If you want full realism, go drive real racing cars. ;) Oh, why didn't Papy set the minimum ride height to 3.5 - 4.0 inch right from the start? Is there a good reason for this? I would think that they have done some research.. and why set the minimum ride height to only 2.5 inch with the patch if it's still way off? Just a few questions, hopefully someone from Papy can answer these. -- Greger Huttu

Then it wouldn't surprise you to know that it took me only 21 laps of practice at the ring to go below 8mins and take the WR(since beaten twice by wolfi and risto) :) This is using a setup that has ride height of 3.75 at the front and 4.25 at the rear, and after a break from the ring of many months. Ian

Not the way I set the car up, Richard....and certainly not the way I drive!!! On the grids....yes, you're correct. However, what I attempt to do now is to set my fields to the same number of 3-litre cars as gridded for each event and then reduce that number by one. I then become the last person. What I would like to have the ability to do is to set the grids exactly as per history and then randomly take the role of one of the drivers on a race-by-race basis. That way I wouldn't concern myself with setting a "qualifying" time and would merely slip into the***pit of whatever car the dice came up with. Would certainly make for an interesting time! :o) > >In response to the Kyalami example, Ian, I have deliberately adjusted the > >slowest AI performance to be representative of the average lap times (for > >each circuit) from the 1967 season. > Aren't you giving yourself an unfair advantage if you are using the 67 cars

Quoted text (12 lines)

> whilst the AI are constrained to the speeds set with the 66 ones? > >If I could also receate, race-by-race, the correct grid positions than I > >would be even happier! > But you wouldn't be able to race in that case.... <vbg> > 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...

> Oh, why didn't Papy set the minimum ride height to 3.5 - 4.0 inch > right from the start? Is there a good reason for this? I would think > that they have done some research.. and why set the minimum ride > height to only 2.5 inch with the patch if it's still way off? Presumably there is some physical reason why the real race cars didn't use very low ride heights, and the best way for Papy to get 'realism' is to ensure that the physics model accurately reflects the real-world pros and cons of low ride heights. If that was accurate, then presumably the fastest setups in GPL would end up pretty similar to the real-world setups of those times. I mean, they must have missed something in the physics model for such low ride-heights to work better than realistic ones? If it's a question of the tracks being artificially smooth and therefore not truly reflecting the difficulty of driving on the bump stops, surely it would be possible to put in some random 'noise' that becomes noticable when the suspension has insufficient travel? I just think it would be better to tweak the model so we end up at the 'correct' ride height because it works better, not because of an arbitrary limit.

Quoted text (13 lines)

> >On a personal note, I think that the cars are far more interesting at authentic > >ride heights and are in fact more of a challenge to get low laptimes in. I think > >this should be reflected in future hotlap compettitions as low laptimes with high > >ride height should be interesting to see, and more difficult to attain. > Then it wouldn't surprise you to know that it took me only 21 laps of > practice at the ring to go below 8mins and take the WR(since beaten > twice by wolfi and risto) :) > This is using a setup that has ride height of 3.75 at the front and > 4.25 at the rear, and after a break from the ring of many months. > Ian

Indeed it does not surprise me to know that you were able to do such a thing since you've established yourself as a faster than average driver (much faster :). My intention was not to infer that the fastest drivers would not be able to continue to drive quick laps. Having driven low rider setups however and beaten my own personal best times without trying very hard, it seems quite obvious that there is an artificial advantage to be gained by doing so. Since this was discovered to be an advantage, many have been playing a game of follow the leader(s) in an attempt to duplicate the fast times set by some very talented drivers, and in so doing have robbed themselves of the opportunity to learn more about real world vehicle dynamics in a simulated environment. Does that mean that you or anyone else who uses these techniques equates to cheating? well as I stated before since there is no governing body to make a ruling on what constitutes a cheat, so there will continue to be a lot of debate on that subject. It does point out that there are, and will continue to be, loopholes to be found in any simulation, and if there's an advantage to be gained, then people will use it. Since you have proven yourself to be amongst the fastest drivers, I would encourage you (and others like you) to continue to experiment/explore with higher ride heights, other diff. settings etc.(while kicking ***as you're bound to do) and in general widen your/our awareness and understanding of the limitations and possibilities that can be achieved in spite of the physical anomalies of the simulation rather than taking advantage of them. Respectfully Thomas JS Brown

% But IMHO it's not because they didn't used those setups back in the days % that it means they couldn't had used those settings. Who knows what maximum % and minimum settings the teams could use for about everything (spring rate, % gearing, etc..). Im sure Papyrus made research on this aspect, I hope they % did not throw random min/max settings. But of course they might have had % for certain settings like the ride-height, since the minimum height was % changed during the beta testing stage. If I remember correctly, I think Dave K. explained this in one of his interviews. Today's PC's can't run fast enough to simulate the high-frequency bumps. Physically it was probably possible for a 1967 F1 car to be set to a ride height of 1.00", but due to the poor handling enduced by high-frequency bumps, no one in their right mind would have driven their car with such a low ride height. I would hazard to guess that the actual mechanics of adjusting the ride height is modelled correctly in GPL. Therefore, they allowed settings below the soon to be default of 2.5" in GPL. I think the big discussions regarding ride height in r.a.s. helped contribute to the patch restriction. [did I say "soon to be default"? --- let me rephrase that, "in a galaxy far, far away, in a time, far, far in the future to be default".] -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

I think that low ride heights not being either possible in 1967, or authentic in GPL, is down to the simple fact that the half-shafts would have self-destructed in a very short space of time in a real car, due to being run at such acute angles. After this, bumps, kerbs, debris etc would have come a significant second. Steve

Quoted text (19 lines)

>If I remember correctly, I think Dave K. explained this in one of his >interviews. Today's PC's can't run fast enough to simulate the >high-frequency bumps. Physically it was probably possible for a 1967 F1 >car to be set to a ride height of 1.00", but due to the poor handling >enduced by high-frequency bumps, no one in their right mind would have >driven their car with such a low ride height. I would hazard to guess >that the actual mechanics of adjusting the ride height is modelled >correctly in GPL. Therefore, they allowed settings below the soon to be >default of 2.5" in GPL. I think the big discussions regarding ride >height in r.a.s. helped contribute to the patch restriction. >[did I say "soon to be default"? --- let me rephrase that, "in a >galaxy far, far away, in a time, far, far in the future to be default".] >-- >**************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* > Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=