Yep, that's right, I want a "realistic" ride height, and I don't
believe 2.5inches will be seen as "realistic" to the purists.
If you don't at least explain why you have chosen 2.5inches as the new
ride height? There has to be a reason? I'm sure all the purists would
like to know why you have still chosen a ride height which is
historically at least, too low?
If you raise it to 4inches, that way, when I go out on the track with
my coventry at spa, and beat the lotii, I will be seen as a great
driver and not just another guy probably using a low-rider....
Ian
/\ 7:57 at the ring using "realistic" ride heights /\
Calls to raise GPL's minimum ride height to four inches
Top hotlapper Ian Lake asked Papyrus to raise the patch's minimum ride height from 2.5 to a historically realistic 4 inches, or explain the choice, and Randy Cassidy joked that adding the feature would delay the patch. Supporters argued period cars ran 3.75 to 5 inches and that geometry and half-shafts would not allow lower, while others said GPL is a game, that freedom helps tune the physics, or that per-car realistic setup ranges were the answer. Bruce Kennewell and others also discussed the origins of wings in 1966-68.
With Randy Cassidy (Papyrus)
Automated summary.
High or low, I think your still very fast judging by the times posted
everywhere and on online races I've been againts you.
Maybe my nice comments deserve free personal tips and setups ? =:-D
Robert
Hull, Qubec
So, you want them to raise the car because you don't want to be accused of
low-riding and NOT because it is autentic? Huh? Hey man, you're driving
this sim with the wrong motivation!
;-)
But, seriously, why should ride heights below 4 inches be allowed in the
game when they didn't use that in -67? And why should we be ablt to
finetune the arbs in the game when they couldn't do this in -67? Or
dampers? And the number 1 to 5 used with dampers, what does they mean?
Does "2" give the double stiffness at a given frequency in comparison to
1? What frequenzy btw? And when we heard that the Brabham used spring
stiffnesses of 65 yo 75 lbs/inch, why should we allow 50 or 100?
Couldn't they limit the setup high and lowmarks in relation to the
specific cars? Lack of info from the car engineers at that time?
---Asgeir---
Quoted text (15 lines)
> Yep, that's right, I want a "realistic" ride height, and I don't > believe 2.5inches will be seen as "realistic" to the purists. > If you don't at least explain why you have chosen 2.5inches as the new > ride height? There has to be a reason? I'm sure all the purists would > like to know why you have still chosen a ride height which is > historically at least, too low? > If you raise it to 4inches, that way, when I go out on the track with > my coventry at spa, and beat the lotii, I will be seen as a great > driver and not just another guy probably using a low-rider.... > Ian > /\ 7:57 at the ring using "realistic" ride heights /\I _can_ understand why they've allowed more setup freedom than was available
in reality. Since the physics engine is an approximization of the real
thing, you never know if you got it right, not even Papy themself. If you
allow some more freedom with the setups it will be possible to fine tune the
physics to act more realistic.
I _can_ also understand why they allowed ride heights lower than what they
drove in reality, but since the physics engine cant handle low ride heights
they shouldn't have allowed it in GPL. If the physics could handle low ride
heights and it was possible to set the ride heights to such low values back
then, then I guess it should be implemented like this... but I'm not sure
:o).
I'm guessing they think the physics engine can handle 2.5 inch ride heights.
If so then we will "all" drive 2.5 inch ride heigths cause we're not afraid
the car will bottom out at Eau de Rouge, cause we cant die in GPL. Or we
stiffen the cars springs to the max, which works just fine in GPL, but would
work just terribly in reality...
/Christer
Quoted text (31 lines)
>But, seriously, why should ride heights below 4 inches be allowed in the >game when they didn't use that in -67? And why should we be ablt to >finetune the arbs in the game when they couldn't do this in -67? Or >dampers? And the number 1 to 5 used with dampers, what does they mean? >Does "2" give the double stiffness at a given frequency in comparison to >1? What frequenzy btw? And when we heard that the Brabham used spring >stiffnesses of 65 yo 75 lbs/inch, why should we allow 50 or 100? >Couldn't they limit the setup high and lowmarks in relation to the >specific cars? Lack of info from the car engineers at that time? >---Asgeir--- >> Yep, that's right, I want a "realistic" ride height, and I don't >> believe 2.5inches will be seen as "realistic" to the purists. >> If you don't at least explain why you have chosen 2.5inches as the new >> ride height? There has to be a reason? I'm sure all the purists would >> like to know why you have still chosen a ride height which is >> historically at least, too low? >> If you raise it to 4inches, that way, when I go out on the track with >> my coventry at spa, and beat the lotii, I will be seen as a great >> driver and not just another guy probably using a low-rider.... >> Ian >> /\ 7:57 at the ring using "realistic" ride heights /\I would like to really hear the car scratch and yowl when the tub hit.
Right now, other than the adverse handling when the tub hits, I can't
tell when it does.
BTW, does GPL dump have a readout for bottoming out like the old
telemetry in GP2 did?
MM
Hmm Ian, I think everyone knows you're just as fast low or high. In
fact, I think Papy should put in a piece of code that sets the ride
height to 10" and removes one wheel if the drivers name is Ian Lake or
Wolfgang Woeger, just to make an even field for all of us.
> I would like to really hear the car scratch and yowl when the tub hit.
> Right now, other than the adverse handling when the tub hits, I can't
> tell when it does.
It already does this - you get a horrible scraping noise and sparks
coming from under the car (obviously you have to watch an external view
for this!).
There are only a few places where you can really bottom out - notably
Mosport, just before the hairpin, and (with low-ish ride height) at
Brands Hatch on the approach to Dingle Dell.
Maybe the adverse handling you've experienced was the suspension hitting
the bump-stops - I certainly would like there to be a (different)
warning noise for that situation (maybe some kind of "doink" sound).
It's hard to really bottom out a car in Monza or Silverstone, but try
the Nurburgring then.
AFAIK Jackie Stewart once said that on the Ring, the car jumps 13
times per lap, and they had to use all the bump *** available to
prevent the car from grinding itself to pieces.
--
Matthias Flatt
Say, now! There's an idea I can sink my teeth into! It'll add another
few weeks to the patch, but should be well worth it... :-)
Randy
I'm curious... why would we want a minimum ride height of 4 inches?
Seams to me that "in real life" if a driver of a car wanted a SRH of
0.00001 inches he could have it. He would be scraping the ground a lot
and would probably last a half a lap before the tub was ground
through.... But still, he could have had it.
My opinion is that if you were to have a "low rider" setup, the car
should act the way the low rider setup would in "real life" by scraping
the tub a lot and loosing speed, and/or be almost undrivable through a
corner, fall apart after a full lap, ect..
My opinion is that the SRH minimum shouldn't be fixed but the results
of a low SRH and week springs should.
Mike Barlow
--
=========================================
Mike Barlow of Barlow Racing?
=========================================
Member of R.O.R. 1999
http://w3.ime.net/~marknjess/ror.html
=========================================
Racing online with the help of......
Mark Seery ***sports
[link lost in import]
Sim Racing Mag
http://www.simracingmag.com/
Race Communications Association
http://members.xoom.com/RCA/toc.html
Holodyne Engineering
Mystic Music
(have Your !!Name/Address!! placed here)
mikeba.vcf
< 1K
Download
Quoted text (18 lines)
> So, you want them to raise the car because you don't want to be accused of > low-riding and NOT because it is autentic? Huh? Hey man, you're driving > this sim with the wrong motivation! > ;-) > But, seriously, why should ride heights below 4 inches be allowed in the > game when they didn't use that in -67? And why should we be ablt to > finetune the arbs in the game when they couldn't do this in -67? Or > dampers? And the number 1 to 5 used with dampers, what does they mean? > Does "2" give the double stiffness at a given frequency in comparison to > 1? What frequenzy btw? And when we heard that the Brabham used spring > stiffnesses of 65 yo 75 lbs/inch, why should we allow 50 or 100? > Couldn't they limit the setup high and lowmarks in relation to the > specific cars? Lack of info from the car engineers at that time? > ---Asgeir---Agreed, I would like to see minimum ride height set to 3.5 or 4
inches, too. I was testing with 2.5 ride heights at Silverstone today,
I did a 1:25.9 after some tweaking to the setup. Once I got rid of the
terrible understeer the car was very nice to drive, even if I hit the
curbs on those two corners I was still able to catch it.
I think I will start experimenting with even higher ride heights and
see how this affects the car. If I can get good results I might start
using these new setups for online racing and hotlapping. Well, at
least after the patch is out.
So Papy, set it to 3.5 or 4 inch. minimum and settle this. Although,
it's probably too late to make changes anymore. :(
Yes, I would also like to know this. I asked about this in other
thread but haven't got an answer yet. As you said, there has to be a
good reason. I'm sure that the Papy guys know that in real-life they
didn't use ride heights this low.
--
Greger Huttu
One approach to a corner at Brands Hatch does it even time.
--
Redline Race Controls
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/System/9045/
Nigel of Lakewood Motorsports
Hamilton
New Zealand
so they gave us the freedom to have realistic physics through setup
modification but people dont want an authentic setup. They want a fast
setup so they do the exact opposite and abuse the lack of a COMPLETELY
realistic physics model.
My thoughts
>I _can_ understand why they've allowed more setup freedom than was available
>in reality. Since the physics engine is an approximization of the real
>thing, you never know if you got it right, not even Papy themself. If you
>allow some more freedom with the setups it will be possible to fine tune the
heights.
>If so then we will "all" drive 2.5 inch ride heigths cause we're not afraid
>the car will bottom out at Eau de Rouge, cause we cant die in GPL. Or we
>stiffen the cars springs to the max, which works just fine in GPL, but would
Quoted text (10 lines)
>physics to act more realistic. >I _can_ also understand why they allowed ride heights lower than what they >drove in reality, but since the physics engine cant handle low ride heights >they shouldn't have allowed it in GPL. If the physics could handle low ride >heights and it was possible to set the ride heights to such low values back >then, then I guess it should be implemented like this... but I'm not sure >:o). >I'm guessing they think the physics engine can handle 2.5 inch rideQuoted text (37 lines)
>work just terribly in reality... >/Christer >>But, seriously, why should ride heights below 4 inches be allowed in the >>game when they didn't use that in -67? And why should we be ablt to >>finetune the arbs in the game when they couldn't do this in -67? Or >>dampers? And the number 1 to 5 used with dampers, what does they mean? >>Does "2" give the double stiffness at a given frequency in comparison to >>1? What frequenzy btw? And when we heard that the Brabham used spring >>stiffnesses of 65 yo 75 lbs/inch, why should we allow 50 or 100? >>Couldn't they limit the setup high and lowmarks in relation to the >>specific cars? Lack of info from the car engineers at that time? >>---Asgeir--- >>> Yep, that's right, I want a "realistic" ride height, and I don't >>> believe 2.5inches will be seen as "realistic" to the purists. >>> If you don't at least explain why you have chosen 2.5inches as the new >>> ride height? There has to be a reason? I'm sure all the purists would >>> like to know why you have still chosen a ride height which is >>> historically at least, too low? >>> If you raise it to 4inches, that way, when I go out on the track with >>> my coventry at spa, and beat the lotii, I will be seen as a great >>> driver and not just another guy probably using a low-rider.... >>> Ian >>> /\ 7:57 at the ring using "realistic" ride heights /\see thats the thing. If he asked for it, he would get it. The thing is, in
real like IT ISNT THAT FAST. The physics model needs to be adjusted to
where a 1 in. ride hight will scrape the ground a lot and cause for a whole
bunch of problems. Right now it currently doesn't thus the only way to move
away from this abusing the physics model it to raise the ride heights. I am
guessing it would be tough for papy to go in and redesign their physics
model to include abusing the car with low ride heights.
Jesse
Quoted text (41 lines)
>I'm curious... why would we want a minimum ride height of 4 inches? >Seams to me that "in real life" if a driver of a car wanted a SRH of >0.00001 inches he could have it. He would be scraping the ground a lot >and would probably last a half a lap before the tub was ground >through.... But still, he could have had it. > My opinion is that if you were to have a "low rider" setup, the car >should act the way the low rider setup would in "real life" by scraping >the tub a lot and loosing speed, and/or be almost undrivable through a >corner, fall apart after a full lap, ect.. > My opinion is that the SRH minimum shouldn't be fixed but the results >of a low SRH and week springs should. >Mike Barlow >-- >========================================= >Mike Barlow of Barlow Racing? >========================================= >Member of R.O.R. 1999 >http://w3.ime.net/~marknjess/ror.html >========================================= >Racing online with the help of...... >Mark Seery ***sports >[link lost in import] >Sim Racing Mag >http://www.simracingmag.com/ >Race Communications Association >http://members.xoom.com/RCA/toc.html >Holodyne Engineering >Mystic Music >(have Your !!Name/Address!! placed here)and what is wrong with that? Give us air pressure adjustments and let us
run. Do you think that when the guys got to the track and 30 seconds before
the race started they would just throw in a different ramp angle or amount
of clutches into the differential? Do you think they would swap out springs
on a regular basis and take apart the suspension to put in a new bump ***
or lower the ride height? These guys would run what they brung. They show
up, throw it on the track and drive. It was a time of driver skill and who
had the better engine not a time of setup tweeks and digital telemetry. I
feel the game would have been better if the setups were limited more and the
racing was more about driver skill. I mean right now, -5 toe in at the
front is real fast in GPL. That isn't driver skill adding that extra time.
It is the setup getting those last few tenths of a second. Im sure the same
people would be at the top of the hot lap charts no matter WHAT type of
setup regulations were allowed but the margins would be closer and there
could be less emphasis on setups and more emphasis on driving. It would
also take away the frustration from the newbie driver that has no clue how
to tweak a setup.
OK enough of my rant. Talk later.
Jesse
>> So, you want them to raise the car because you don't want to be accused of
Quoted text (50 lines)
>> low-riding and NOT because it is autentic? Huh? Hey man, you're driving >> this sim with the wrong motivation! >> ;-) >> But, seriously, why should ride heights below 4 inches be allowed in the >> game when they didn't use that in -67? And why should we be ablt to >> finetune the arbs in the game when they couldn't do this in -67? Or >> dampers? And the number 1 to 5 used with dampers, what does they mean? >> Does "2" give the double stiffness at a given frequency in comparison to >> 1? What frequenzy btw? And when we heard that the Brabham used spring >> stiffnesses of 65 yo 75 lbs/inch, why should we allow 50 or 100? >> Couldn't they limit the setup high and lowmarks in relation to the >> specific cars? Lack of info from the car engineers at that time? >> ---Asgeir--- > No offense intended (only because this is the second message in this >thread that I have read) but seams to me that you are after the exact >same setup that was used for each individual track and each individual >car rather then the concept of creating your own setup. Or another way >to say this.. you don't want a setup page included in the Sim because >that means that we could change something. >-- >========================================= >Mike Barlow of Barlow Racing? >========================================= >Member of R.O.R. 1999 >http://w3.ime.net/~marknjess/ror.html >========================================= >Racing online with the help of...... >Mark Seery ***sports >[link lost in import] >Sim Racing Mag >http://www.simracingmag.com/ >Race Communications Association >http://members.xoom.com/RCA/toc.html >Holodyne Engineering >Mystic Music >(have Your !!Name/Address!! placed here)I don't know what kind of sound card you're using, but I most definitely
hear a scraping noise when the tub bottoms on the track. Now on the other
hand, if you're actually refering to all of the recent ride height
discussion brought about by Alison's Ferrari setups, that's about the
suspension bottoming on the bump ***s not the chassis bottoming on the
ground. Two completely different things.
Hitting the bump ***s is not something that can be heard in real life,
only felt. The only way I can think to model this in a sim would be with
graphics that mimic the old shoe polish trick. You "paint" the ends of
the bump ***s with white shoe polish before you go out on the track.
If there's shoe polish on the ends of the dampers when you come back into
the pits, then you know you've hit the bump ***s.
--
| "Instead of letting the moon be the
Bill Mette | gateway to our future, we have let
Enteract, Chicago | it become a brief chapter in our
Well guys, the only thing I really have to say about raising the ride height,
etc. is that this_isn't_real_life! It's just_a_game! It doesn't have to be
perfectly realistic and it never will be perfectly realistic. So just sit back
and have fun, no matter what the ride height is.
Dan Belcher
Team Racing Unlimited
Yeah guys, lets go race Nascar Revolution. Who cares how realistic it is.
Its just a game! Sorry I had to say that. No offense to you. Just wanted
to make a point.
Jesse
Game? Not for me it's not. This "game" has re-awakened a long dormant
enthusiasm for fast driving. Hell, I went out and bought GOING FASTER(Skip
Barber Racing School book). I'm pouring through this like I was back in
school. I study and then go out and try it on the track... oh, I mean I go
play the game. No, that doesn't work for me. GPL is a simulator in the
truest sense of the word. Actually I'm thinking of building a***pit
complete with built in CPU and monitor dedicated solely to GPL.
Cheers,
Kent Hosterman
Who are the purists but those who think they know best.
Is it though? care to provide references : I would be particularly
interested in what the 1967 F1 regulations said about implementation of
suspension, and interested to know what it would have been possible to
do to a car in the way of suspension tuning given an unlimited amount
of time and budget. My guess is almost anything in terms of ride height,
spring, roll bar and bump rates. Perhaps it's really an issue for the
physics model...
Personally, in online races I see anyone who can just stay on the track
for 12 laps as a great driver. :-).
--
Suck The Goat
Viper racing has an excellent sound when the car bottoms out.
Mike
Quoted text (21 lines)
> >I would like to really hear the car scratch and yowl when the tub hit. > >Right now, other than the adverse handling when the tub hits, I can't > >tell when it does. > I don't know what kind of sound card you're using, but I most definitely > hear a scraping noise when the tub bottoms on the track. Now on the other > hand, if you're actually refering to all of the recent ride height > discussion brought about by Alison's Ferrari setups, that's about the > suspension bottoming on the bump ***s not the chassis bottoming on the > ground. Two completely different things. > Hitting the bump ***s is not something that can be heard in real life, > only felt. The only way I can think to model this in a sim would be with > graphics that mimic the old shoe polish trick. You "paint" the ends of > the bump ***s with white shoe polish before you go out on the track. > If there's shoe polish on the ends of the dampers when you come back into > the pits, then you know you've hit the bump ***s. > -- > | "Instead of letting the moon be the > Bill Mette | gateway to our future, we have let > Enteract, Chicago | it become a brief chapter in ourIt is an historical simulation and therefore the adjustable parameters
should be as per history had them, IMO.
Simple as that.
Quoted text (41 lines)
> I'm curious... why would we want a minimum ride height of 4 inches? > Seams to me that "in real life" if a driver of a car wanted a SRH of > 0.00001 inches he could have it. He would be scraping the ground a lot > and would probably last a half a lap before the tub was ground > through.... But still, he could have had it. > My opinion is that if you were to have a "low rider" setup, the car > should act the way the low rider setup would in "real life" by scraping > the tub a lot and loosing speed, and/or be almost undrivable through a > corner, fall apart after a full lap, ect.. > My opinion is that the SRH minimum shouldn't be fixed but the results > of a low SRH and week springs should. > Mike Barlow > -- > ========================================= > Mike Barlow of Barlow Racing? > ========================================= > Member of R.O.R. 1999 > http://w3.ime.net/~marknjess/ror.html > ========================================= > Racing online with the help of...... > Mark Seery ***sports > [link lost in import] > Sim Racing Mag > http://www.simracingmag.com/ > Race Communications Association > http://members.xoom.com/RCA/toc.html > Holodyne Engineering > Mystic Music > (have Your !!Name/Address!! placed here)I didn't quite mean it that way though Jesse. But thanks for calling me on
that. I guess I'd better explain a little better. What I meant was really
that no game will ever be a perfect simulation of real life. We can't program
all the kinds of variables that occur in real life and I doubt that we'll ever
be able to do so realistically. So, is there anything really wrong with GPL
now? It's the best simulator on the market, even if the ride height isn't
completely correct to real life. So, don't fret and just enjoy how much better
it is than NASCAR Revulsion even though it's not completely perfect. That
better?
Dan Belcher
Team Racing Unlimited
A driver could not ask for a minimum ride height of .00001 inches. The
suspension could not move that far. He would not in 1967 even to be able to
ask for 1 inch, or 2 inch. The geometry will not allow it. The Carrol Smith
book Tune to Win shows how to make a cardboard model of a cars suspension in
order to test the movement. If you have the book, I can supply the drawings
for the Lotus 49 rear suspension so you can prove this for yourself.
Steve
Quoted text (41 lines)
>I'm curious... why would we want a minimum ride height of 4 inches? >Seams to me that "in real life" if a driver of a car wanted a SRH of >0.00001 inches he could have it. He would be scraping the ground a lot >and would probably last a half a lap before the tub was ground >through.... But still, he could have had it. > My opinion is that if you were to have a "low rider" setup, the car >should act the way the low rider setup would in "real life" by scraping >the tub a lot and loosing speed, and/or be almost undrivable through a >corner, fall apart after a full lap, ect.. > My opinion is that the SRH minimum shouldn't be fixed but the results >of a low SRH and week springs should. >Mike Barlow >-- >========================================= >Mike Barlow of Barlow Racing? >========================================= >Member of R.O.R. 1999 >http://w3.ime.net/~marknjess/ror.html >========================================= >Racing online with the help of...... >Mark Seery ***sports >[link lost in import] >Sim Racing Mag >http://www.simracingmag.com/ >Race Communications Association >http://members.xoom.com/RCA/toc.html >Holodyne Engineering >Mystic Music >(have Your !!Name/Address!! placed here)This newsgroup is called rec.autos.simulators. Maybe you posted to the wrong
group.
Steve
Quoted text (7 lines)
> A driver could not ask for a minimum ride height of .00001 inches. The > suspension could not move that far. He would not in 1967 even to be able to > ask for 1 inch, or 2 inch. The geometry will not allow it. The Carrol Smith > book Tune to Win shows how to make a cardboard model of a cars suspension in > order to test the movement. If you have the book, I can supply the drawings > for the Lotus 49 rear suspension so you can prove this for yourself. > SteveYeah, that's the problem. People aren't interested in realistic setups, they are
interested in going as fast as possible, and this is where things didn't turn
out to be as Papy meant.
---Asgeir---
> so they gave us the freedom to have realistic physics through setup
> modification but people dont want an authentic setup. They want a fast
> setup so they do the exact opposite and abuse the lack of a COMPLETELY
> realistic physics model.
> My thoughts
No that was not what I meant, then I must be expressing myself poorly.
Anyway, what I meant was the each car could have it's own setup window, if the
car couldn't be lower than 4 inches, let it be like that. If a car had an ARB
with max stiffness 150 lbs/inch, let it be like that.
In a way, the extremities of the setup menu could differ from one car to the
other. To narrow in on the realistic "window" on each car. Adjustable setup
options like we have, but different extremities...
---Asgeir---
Quoted text (8 lines)
> No offense intended (only because this is the second message in this > thread that I have read) but seams to me that you are after the exact > same setup that was used for each individual track and each individual > car rather then the concept of creating your own setup. Or another way > to say this.. you don't want a setup page included in the Sim because > that means that we could change something. > >snipped your nice long personality list<And if the struts could be bent, the drive axle universal joints would seize after
3 laps, because of the adverse angle between output shaft and axle...
---Asgeir---
Quoted text (19 lines)
> > A driver could not ask for a minimum ride height of .00001 inches. The > > suspension could not move that far. He would not in 1967 even to be able to > > ask for 1 inch, or 2 inch. The geometry will not allow it. The Carrol Smith > > book Tune to Win shows how to make a cardboard model of a cars suspension in > > order to test the movement. If you have the book, I can supply the drawings > > for the Lotus 49 rear suspension so you can prove this for yourself. > > Steve > Ah, waited for somebody to say that:) > Thanks, Steve! > Well, really, if you took the suspension arms and bent them a bit ? <g> > Matt > -- > Matthew Birger Knutsen > Cheek Racing Cars > http://www.cheekracing.electra.noGood point, Piers. Do any of our online companions here have access to
the '67 F1 regs? If so, please post the appropriate paragraphs for all
of us, and we will lobby Papy and at the same time limit ourselves in
setting legal ride heights......
> .... I would be particularly interested in what the 1967 F1
regulations said about implementation of suspension, and interested to
know what it would have been possible to do to a car in the way of
suspension tuning given an unlimited amount of time and budget. ....
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Especially the bottom of Fuchsrohre. Full throttle 5th gear, down into the
dip, then up the hill to the tricky entrance to Adenauer Forst. Many a setup
change has come to naught as I go careering into the woods 3 minutes into
the lap when I bottom out the rear end as I hit the upslope. Arrgh! ...and I
do hear the noise, BTW, although it's mostly drowned out by the engine.
Right Steve. This leads to 2 questions, the answers to which I think define why
the optimum SRH is so different in GPL from the '67 GP cars.
1. If the basic physics of a car dictate that the lowest possible SRH = the
lowest center of gravity = minimum weight transfer = best combined grip from all
tires, then why did the '67 GP cars have suspension geometry designed for, and
ride heights set for, a higher range than optimal in GPL?
I believe it has to do most with the tires of the time. An open formula like GP
racing basically dictates that much of the car design is determined by the
available tire characteristics. The primary tire characteristics of that time
were low grip for the available engine power, and tall profile with stiff
sidewalls resulting in the tire acting like a very stiff spring compared to
today's tire designs. This required soft springs and shocks, compared to modern
race cars, to better give the driver the ability to control the car at the
limit. And the softer settings required higher ride height to keep the bottom of
the chassis from hitting the ground or the suspension hitting the bump stops,
either of which would have caused a more *** loss of grip than in a modern
car with stiffer settings, better tire grip, and softer lower sidewall designs.
Also, I suspect it was important be conservative with setups (keep'em high)
given the already high death and injury rate to drivers of the time...not a
problem in a sim.
2. Why do the GPL cars seem to drive well whether set to high or low ride
heights, and get away with the 'low rider' settings that produce the best laps
times expected of achieving the lowest possible center of gravity?
It appears to me this is not so much a case of whether Papy modeled the
variables of vehicle dynamics accurately, but what had to be left out of the
model. From what I've read, GPL doesn't model all aspects of suspension
geometry. Factors like instant center height, camber change, contact patch
scrub, etc are not effected by ride height. So there is no resulting down side
to 'low rider' settings.
Also, GPL car settings don't have to take into account all the track surface
irregularities of the real world because they too are not modeled. A smoother
more consistant surface = higher spring, shock, and bar settings = lower ride
heights = lower center of gravity = less weight transfer = better combined grip
of all 4 tires.
So, all in all, good job Papy and 2.5" ride height in the patch makes sense to
me.
Marty
Quoted text (7 lines)
> A driver could not ask for a minimum ride height of .00001 inches. The > suspension could not move that far. He would not in 1967 even to be able to > ask for 1 inch, or 2 inch. The geometry will not allow it. The Carrol Smith > book Tune to Win shows how to make a cardboard model of a cars suspension in > order to test the movement. If you have the book, I can supply the drawings > for the Lotus 49 rear suspension so you can prove this for yourself. > SteveQuoted text (8 lines)
> >Yeah guys, lets go race Nascar Revolution. Who cares how realistic it is. > >Its just a game! Sorry I had to say that. No offense to you. Just wanted > >to make a point. > I didn't quite mean it that way though Jesse. But thanks for calling me on > that. I guess I'd better explain a little better. What I meant was really > that no game will ever be a perfect simulation of real life. We can't program > all the kinds of variables that occur in real life and I doubt that we'll everBut....but.......Dan, it's a **SIMULATION**!!!
NOT a "game"..........God in Heaven....do you want to go to Hell?!! :o)
A designer/constructor could do what they liked with the suspension so long
as the track and wheelbase dimensions for the formula were not compromised.
Quoted text (15 lines)
> Good point, Piers. Do any of our online companions here have access to > the '67 F1 regs? If so, please post the appropriate paragraphs for all > of us, and we will lobby Papy and at the same time limit ourselves in > setting legal ride heights...... > > .... I would be particularly interested in what the 1967 F1 > regulations said about implementation of suspension, and interested to > know what it would have been possible to do to a car in the way of > suspension tuning given an unlimited amount of time and budget. .... > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Share what you know. Learn what you don't.I can't agree with much that you say. Consider this. Eleven years after GPL
is set , 1978, the ride height for the Williams FW06 was still 3.25 inch.
This was the last 'conventional' Williams before the ground effects era. In
that time tyres went through many evolutions, including slicks. Are you
seriously suggesting that all the cars in those eleven years were designed
around the tyres? Your main misconception seems to centre around the tall
stiff sidewalls of earlier tyres causing '***' loss of grip. Not so.
This characteristic made them very predictable. Hence the tail out cornering
attitudes and 'four wheel drifts'. When slick tyres were first introduced
into Grand Prix racing in the late '60s and early '70s the tyre designers
had to take one step back, and put a 'tread pattern' back into the design.
Why? Because the drivers found that when the extra sticky tyres eventually
lost grip, it was all at once. Not predictable. And a case of chassis
designers and drivers comments influencing tyre design! All tyres have flex
in the sidewall. But you wouldn't get Michael Schumacher thanking you for
giving him tyres with a soft sidewall. Modern cars have stiff springs as a
consequence of downforce caused by the wings. No wings, no need for stiff
springs. Add together downforce, stiff springs and soft tyrewalls. What you
would get is a tyre that 'is' the primary suspension device for the car. And
it would be doing some pretty wild things to the gear ratios as it
alternately expanded and squashed! Modern competition tyres do not have soft
tyre sidewalls. And why are your modern low profile road tyres low profile?
Yes, to stop flex in the sidewall. And no, drivers deaths did not influence
ride heights and suspension design in 1967. Grand Prix cars are, and always
have been, designed to go as fast as possible within the rules. So, all in
all, lets face it, GPL was designed by committee, and somebody got it wrong.
So instead of trying to work out what they may have 'meant' by setting low
ride heights, lets just admit they made a mistake, and put it right?
Steve
>Right Steve. This leads to 2 questions, the answers to which I think define why
>the optimum SRH is so different in GPL from the '67 GP cars.
>1. If the basic physics of a car dictate that the lowest possible SRH = the
>lowest center of gravity = minimum weight transfer = best combined grip from all
>tires, then why did the '67 GP cars have suspension geometry designed for, and
>ride heights set for, a higher range than optimal in GPL?
>I believe it has to do most with the tires of the time. An open formula like GP
>racing basically dictates that much of the car design is determined by the
>available tire characteristics. The primary tire characteristics of that time
>were low grip for the available engine power, and tall profile with stiff
>sidewalls resulting in the tire acting like a very stiff spring compared to
>today's tire designs. This required soft springs and shocks, compared to modern
>race cars, to better give the driver the ability to control the car at the
>limit. And the softer settings required higher ride height to keep the bottom of
>the chassis from hitting the ground or the suspension hitting the bump stops,
>either of which would have caused a more *** loss of grip than in a modern
>car with stiffer settings, better tire grip, and softer lower sidewall designs.
>Also, I suspect it was important be conservative with setups (keep'em high)
>given the already high death and injury rate to drivers of the time...not a
>problem in a sim.
snip...
Like the Bugatti circuit and the F10 Arcade view. Or being able to change
anything on the car without caring about the time to change the parts.
Pitstops ? :)
Just want to stir up the soup, sorry Bruce ;-P
I guess one way or the other, some people will be unhappy. Kinda reminds me
of canonical stuff in the Star Wars universe.
--
-- 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."
Yep.
me
Quoted text (10 lines)
> > It is an historical simulation and therefore the adjustable parameters > > should be as per history had them, IMO. > Like the Bugatti circuit and the F10 Arcade view. Or being able to change > anything on the car without caring about the time to change the parts. > Pitstops ? :) > Just want to stir up the soup, sorry Bruce ;-P > I guess one way or the other, some people will be unhappy. Kinda remindsQuoted text (11 lines)
> of canonical stuff in the Star Wars universe. > -- > -- 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."It still comes out as if you think that since a racing sim never can
be perfect it shouldn't be improved??? You dont want a GPL2, a SCGT2,
a GP3, a TOCA3, etc??? And if you do want these new versions, dont you
want them to be more realistic than todays? If you do, then I dont see
your logic...
/Christer
--
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)).
Quoted text (16 lines)
> >Yeah guys, lets go race Nascar Revolution. Who cares how realistic it is. > >Its just a game! Sorry I had to say that. No offense to you. Just wanted > >to make a point. > I didn't quite mean it that way though Jesse. But thanks for calling me on > that. I guess I'd better explain a little better. What I meant was really > that no game will ever be a perfect simulation of real life. We can't program > all the kinds of variables that occur in real life and I doubt that we'll ever > be able to do so realistically. So, is there anything really wrong with GPL > now? It's the best simulator on the market, even if the ride height isn't > completely correct to real life. So, don't fret and just enjoy how much better > it is than NASCAR Revulsion even though it's not completely perfect. That > better? > Dan Belcher > Team Racing UnlimitedOh jeez, I've caused enough crap, haven't I? :(
Dan Belcher
Team Racing Unlimited
But Piers, there only seven makes of cars to choose from in GPL, and in
there day some teams like Ferrari had a lot of money to spend on suspension
development. But coincidentally all of the teams ran ride heights in the
region of 3.75 inch to 5 inch. Not lower. Ride height was free in the
regulations, so they must have had some idea what they were doing...
Steve
:
snip snip
snip snip
Actually I think the buyers of GPL are interested in both realism and
going as fast as possible, hence we continue to have these discussions
in NGs. I also think that a good way to find faults in a simulation is
to try to go as fast as possible with what the simulation allows. The
drivers who explore the simulation to try to go as fast as possible
are doing us a favour, IMO. I think they speed up the development of
realistic racing sims. In GPL2 we will have high frequent bumps
simulated and a better simulation of car body hitting the track, which
will make low ride heights foolish. These simulations will also
improve overall simulation, which is a good thing, right :o)? With the
patch we just have to seddle with a ride height minimum setting, which
I believe is better than no patch.
/Christer
--
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)).
Quoted text (15 lines)
> Yeah, that's the problem. People aren't interested in realistic setups, they are > interested in going as fast as possible, and this is where things didn't turn > out to be as Papy meant. > ---Asgeir--- > > so they gave us the freedom to have realistic physics through setup > > modification but people dont want an authentic setup. They want a fast > > setup so they do the exact opposite and abuse the lack of a COMPLETELY > > realistic physics model. > > My thoughtsYou are onto something here Jesse. I like the idea of driver skill vs setup
skill. A standard "typical" setup of the day would add to the driving
element. When Pappy had the demo available we all knew we were training on
equal ground. The guys at the top are still at the top, but it was because
of driving skill only. The rest of us felt good as we slowly crept closer to
the top "bananas". The problem seemed to be when racing AI. then we all knew
we were in trouble unless we could do something with the setup. I recommend
that a supplied typical setup, perhaps a choice of 2 for each car, be
available for on-line racing, while anything goes when you are racing the
AI.
Tore Hanson
Did the regulations prohibit the use of airfoils and ground effects, or was
it not thought of then? Some of us are looking at GPL from the "perfect
hind-sight " view. We are forcing current knowledge into the racing era of
1967. What some of us really want is a contemporary F1 sim that performs
like GPL, and hopefully we will get it, but then we we also get the
chopped-up tracks that go with it. If we limit our thinking to the
experience available in1967 perhaps we will look at this SIM differently.
Tore
> But Piers, there only seven makes of cars to choose from in GPL, and in
> there day some teams like Ferrari had a lot of money to spend on suspension
Quoted text (18 lines)
> development. But coincidentally all of the teams ran ride heights in the > region of 3.75 inch to 5 inch. Not lower. Ride height was free in the > regulations, so they must have had some idea what they were doing... > Steve > : > snip snip > >Is it though? care to provide references : I would be particularly > >interested in what the 1967 F1 regulations said about implementation of > >suspension, and interested to know what it would have been possible to > >do to a car in the way of suspension tuning given an unlimited amount > >of time and budget. > ... > snip snipok, but who's gonna build those setups? -You'd have to drive like the one
that build the setup to get the most out of it. I don't think I'd enjoy
that. Using the demo, I made up a short list off stuff I wanted to change on
the car, once I got the ability to change the setup, so... even then I was
convinced I could do better. ;-))
I'm willing to give it a go tho'...
Jan.
------
>You are onto something here Jesse. I like the idea of driver skill vs setup
>skill. A standard "typical" setup of the day would add to the driving
>element. <snip>
Not thought of then, Tore.
In fact, in 1968, the Repco-Brabham and Ferrari teams simultaneously fielded
cars with "little" wings mounted over the engine....the first in Formula
One. (Jim Hall having outfitted the Chaparral the previous Can-Am season).
In the following race, the French GP at Rouen, Lotus took the design to the
next phase with the "wings on sticks" model. It was this version (which
broke quite regularly) that led to the FAI writing the rules....for the very
first time....on wings on F1 cars.
> Did the regulations prohibit the use of airfoils and ground effects, or was
Quoted text (19 lines)
> it not thought of then? Some of us are looking at GPL from the "perfect > hind-sight " view. We are forcing current knowledge into the racing era of > 1967. What some of us really want is a contemporary F1 sim that performs > like GPL, and hopefully we will get it, but then we we also get the > chopped-up tracks that go with it. If we limit our thinking to the > experience available in1967 perhaps we will look at this SIM differently. > Tore > > But Piers, there only seven makes of cars to choose from in GPL, and in > > there day some teams like Ferrari had a lot of money to spend on > suspension > > development. But coincidentally all of the teams ran ride heights in the > > region of 3.75 inch to 5 inch. Not lower. Ride height was free in the > > regulations, so they must have had some idea what they were doing... > > SteveThanks you sir.
Tore
> Not thought of then, Tore.
> In fact, in 1968, the Repco-Brabham and Ferrari teams simultaneously fielded
> cars with "little" wings mounted over the engine....the first in Formula
> One. (Jim Hall having outfitted the Chaparral the previous Can-Am season).
> In the following race, the French GP at Rouen, Lotus took the design to the
> next phase with the "wings on sticks" model. It was this version (which
> broke quite regularly) that led to the FAI writing the rules....for the very
of
> > 1967. What some of us really want is a contemporary F1 sim that performs
> > like GPL, and hopefully we will get it, but then we we also get the
> > chopped-up tracks that go with it. If we limit our thinking to the
> > experience available in1967 perhaps we will look at this SIM differently.
> > Tore
> > > But Piers, there only seven makes of cars to choose from in GPL, and in
> > > there day some teams like Ferrari had a lot of money to spend on
> > suspension
> > > development. But coincidentally all of the teams ran ride heights in the
of
> > > >suspension, and interested to know what it would have been possible to
> > > >do to a car in the way of suspension tuning given an unlimited amount
> > > >of time and budget.
> > > ...
> > > snip snip
Quoted text (9 lines)
> first time....on wings on F1 cars. > > Did the regulations prohibit the use of airfoils and ground effects, or > was > > it not thought of then? Some of us are looking at GPL from the "perfect > > hind-sight " view. We are forcing current knowledge into the racing eraQuoted text (12 lines)
> > > region of 3.75 inch to 5 inch. Not lower. Ride height was free in the > > > regulations, so they must have had some idea what they were doing... > > > Steve > > > : > > > snip snip > > > >Is it though? care to provide references : I would be particularly > > > >interested in what the 1967 F1 regulations said about implementation>Not thought of then, Tore.
>In fact, in 1968, the Repco-Brabham and Ferrari teams simultaneously fielded
>cars with "little" wings mounted over the engine....the first in Formula
>One. (Jim Hall having outfitted the Chaparral the previous Can-Am season).
(Hi Bruce). Actually, Jim Hall's first winged Chaparral was used in the
1966 Can-Am season (the revolutionary 2E). It publically debuted at
Bridgehampton on Long Island in September.
There had been some experiments with airfoils prior to the Chaparral
project. There was even an Opel rocket car back in the 1920s with stubby
wings on the sides! The first wing mounted above the car is believed to be
Michael May's Porsche 550 which ran at Nurburgring in 1956. Unfortunately,
it was banned before the race began.
Unfortunately, the F1 teams that started to use wings in 1968 did a very
poor job implementing them. There were some *** crashes when the wings
failed at high speed. At the Spanish Grand Prix in 1969 Graham Hill and
Jochen Rindt had very scary crashes when the wings on their Lotuses broke.
After that race, the FIA banned the high strutted, movable wings.
Dave Ewing
GPL isn't real life though Ian, I 'know' you and respect your speed, but
don't agree - sorry!
I think 2.5 is great.
So why can't 3.5 be great? What is wrong with making the sim correct? I
think most, if not all, of the people who are for higher than 2.5 inch ride
heights would admit that GPL is not 'real life'. But GPL did fanfare its
'authenticity' in its own literature. And a little historical rigor never
did anybody any harm did it?
Steve (3.5 min and 1 inch bump stops rule O.K.)
>GPL isn't real life though Ian, I 'know' you and respect your speed, but
>don't agree - sorry!
>I think 2.5 is great.
Hi David,
To elaborate on your comments, Colin Chapman originally mounted the
wings directly onto the suspension memebers. Typical of Chapman the
wing strut's diameters were as small as he dared use and they broke
often. If you have ever seen the suspension mounted wings they look
very ugly. They were mounted about 1.5 meters high and in the videos
I've seen they move all over the place. It's hard to imagine a race car
(or sports car) with out any wings nowadays. You even see little
econo-boxes with them. That may be my favorite aspect of GPL. No wings
and no sponsor's labels all over the cars and driving suits.
G White
Quoted text (7 lines)
> Unfortunately, the F1 teams that started to use wings in 1968 did a very > poor job implementing them. There were some *** crashes when the wings > failed at high speed. At the Spanish Grand Prix in 1969 Graham Hill and > Jochen Rindt had very scary crashes when the wings on their Lotuses broke. > After that race, the FIA banned the high strutted, movable wings. > Dave EwingThanks, David.
I was simply using the old memory banks (emphasis on "old"!) and couldn't
recall whether it was '67 or '66 that Jim did the "wing thing" with the 2E.
(I have a perfectly good Chaparral ref book here so why I didn't look at
that, I don't know. Too ***y lazy to get up and get it!!)
> >Not thought of then, Tore.
> >In fact, in 1968, the Repco-Brabham and Ferrari teams simultaneously
> fielded
> >cars with "little" wings mounted over the engine....the first in Formula
> >One. (Jim Hall having outfitted the Chaparral the previous Can-Am season).
be
> Michael May's Porsche 550 which ran at Nurburgring in 1956. Unfortunately,
Quoted text (7 lines)
> (Hi Bruce). Actually, Jim Hall's first winged Chaparral was used in the > 1966 Can-Am season (the revolutionary 2E). It publically debuted at > Bridgehampton on Long Island in September. > There had been some experiments with airfoils prior to the Chaparral > project. There was even an Opel rocket car back in the 1920s with stubby > wings on the sides! The first wing mounted above the car is believed toQuoted text (9 lines)
> it was banned before the race began. > Unfortunately, the F1 teams that started to use wings in 1968 did a very > poor job implementing them. There were some *** crashes when the wings > failed at high speed. At the Spanish Grand Prix in 1969 Graham Hill and > Jochen Rindt had very scary crashes when the wings on their Lotuses broke. > After that race, the FIA banned the high strutted, movable wings. > Dave EwingThat's different.....respecting somebody's speed!
Do respect his coke and hash as well?
