Upside Down Track Idea

Hi all. After watching an IRL race, I was reminded of a common thing that commentator's regularly mention. "The downforce on these cars is so great that if the cars were running upside down on the ceiling, the downforce would keep them in the air, defying gravity..." yadda yadda yadda, you've probably heard this before. Are there any current games where the track editors available could be used to demonstrate this extreme grip??? For example, could you get the banking angle so high that if you dropped below a certain speed, the car would fall right off?? What about a track that looped into a "loop-de-loop", but continued backwards in the direction you came?? <<<--inverted car----------------\ start-->>> car--->>> -------------------------loop up/ the above sketch is font sensitive, but you should get the idea?? The track would have to be a bit wider than normal because you couldn't do kerbs and grass banking, etc, but I was wondering if any of the existing editors would allow this. It would preferably not be an arcade title, to state the obvious. I was wondering specifically if the open source sims could accomodate this (Scirocco, Racer, etc). any takers?? Finally, I posted this a while ago (22 September 2003) and was surprised to see no responses. I've since checked my outbox on Agent and have seen that I accidently posted it to ASSM. I'm sure none of you guys would have seen it though. Suppose it was off topic there :) Regards all, istoff

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:56:45 +0200, istoff <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

>Hi all. > >After watching an IRL race, I was reminded of a common thing that >commentator's regularly mention. > >"The downforce on these cars is so great that if the cars were running >upside down on the ceiling, the downforce would keep them in the air, >defying gravity..." yadda yadda yadda, you've probably heard this >before. > >Are there any current games where the track editors available could be >used to demonstrate this extreme grip??? > >For example, could you get the banking angle so high that if you >dropped below a certain speed, the car would fall right off??

Someone has a track in beta that has banking approaching 90 degrees (it's a short track), and cars apparently can stay up there (AI has some problems tho). Check out Project Wildfire forums for more info. A loop the loop or corkscrew where the centerline "crosses over" itself as seen from the top view is apparently undoable: your idea might work tho if I'm visualizing it correctly. John DiFool

John DiFool wrote:

Quoted text (29 lines)

> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:56:45 +0200, istoff <[email hidden]> > wrote: > >> Hi all. >> >> After watching an IRL race, I was reminded of a common thing that >> commentator's regularly mention. >> >> "The downforce on these cars is so great that if the cars were >> running upside down on the ceiling, the downforce would keep them in >> the air, defying gravity..." yadda yadda yadda, you've probably >> heard this before. >> >> Are there any current games where the track editors available could >> be used to demonstrate this extreme grip??? >> >> For example, could you get the banking angle so high that if you >> dropped below a certain speed, the car would fall right off?? > > Someone has a track in beta that has banking approaching 90 > degrees (it's a short track), and cars apparently can stay up > there (AI has some problems tho). Check out Project Wildfire > forums for more info. > > A loop the loop or corkscrew where the centerline "crosses > over" itself as seen from the top view is apparently undoable: > your idea might work tho if I'm visualizing it correctly. > > John DiFool

Surely an 'upside down' tack would be unraceable. The downforce theory that the original poster quoted is suitable for one car, but what about the disturbance when cars race close together or collide - isn't that going to compromise grip? ++ Fillyourboots

"Fillyourboots" wrote... > >> <snip> > Surely an 'upside down' tack would be unraceable. > The downforce theory that the original poster > quoted is suitable for one car, but what about the > disturbance when cars race close together or collide > - isn't that going to compromise grip? It would make it fairly hard for a spinner to come back "up" into the racing line. <vbg> Seriously, it wouldn't be very practical, but it's an interesting thought experiment. Jan. =---

Crashday and Trackmania are both games that will let you make your own tracks, including vertical loops. Not sure if any of the cars modelled in either game would offer enough downforce to keep them in contact with long upside down sections of track...not to mention if either game can model longer upsidedown sections. Sean "istoff" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (44 lines)

> Hi all. > > After watching an IRL race, I was reminded of a common thing that > commentator's regularly mention. > > "The downforce on these cars is so great that if the cars were running > upside down on the ceiling, the downforce would keep them in the air, > defying gravity..." yadda yadda yadda, you've probably heard this > before. > > Are there any current games where the track editors available could be > used to demonstrate this extreme grip??? > > For example, could you get the banking angle so high that if you > dropped below a certain speed, the car would fall right off?? > > What about a track that looped into a "loop-de-loop", but continued > backwards in the direction you came?? > > > <<<--inverted car----------------\ > > start-->>> car--->>> -------------------------loop up/ > > the above sketch is font sensitive, but you should get the idea?? > > The track would have to be a bit wider than normal because you > couldn't do kerbs and grass banking, etc, but I was wondering if any > of the existing editors would allow this. > > It would preferably not be an arcade title, to state the obvious. I > was wondering specifically if the open source sims could accomodate > this (Scirocco, Racer, etc). > > any takers?? > > Finally, I posted this a while ago (22 September 2003) and was > surprised to see no responses. I've since checked my outbox on Agent > and have seen that I accidently posted it to ASSM. I'm sure none of > you guys would have seen it though. Suppose it was off topic there :) > > > Regards all, > istoff

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Seriously, it wouldn't be very practical, but it's an interesting thought > experiment. > > Jan. > =--- >

Do you all think the car upside down would have a higher top speed than the one right side up, or vice versa? Or would they both have the same top speed?

One could always "fake" it by using those gravity boots that let you hang from the ceiling. Actually, having a loop for a track would be very unique. What would you name it? Rollercoaster Raceway? "jon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:_ySvb.6826$[email hidden]... > > "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > Seriously, it wouldn't be very practical, but it's an interestingthought

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > experiment. > > > > Jan. > > =--- > > > > Do you all think the car upside down would have a higher top speed than

the > one right side up, or vice versa? Or would they both have the same top > speed? > >

It would obviously be an Arcade racer. Real-World Physics aren't a consideration :) -Larry "Fillyourboots" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bpogh6$10$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (32 lines)

> John DiFool wrote: > > On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:56:45 +0200, istoff <[email hidden]> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi all. > >> > >> After watching an IRL race, I was reminded of a common thing that > >> commentator's regularly mention. > >> > >> "The downforce on these cars is so great that if the cars were > >> running upside down on the ceiling, the downforce would keep them in > >> the air, defying gravity..." yadda yadda yadda, you've probably > >> heard this before. > >> > >> Are there any current games where the track editors available could > >> be used to demonstrate this extreme grip??? > >> > >> For example, could you get the banking angle so high that if you > >> dropped below a certain speed, the car would fall right off?? > > > > Someone has a track in beta that has banking approaching 90 > > degrees (it's a short track), and cars apparently can stay up > > there (AI has some problems tho). Check out Project Wildfire > > forums for more info. > > > > A loop the loop or corkscrew where the centerline "crosses > > over" itself as seen from the top view is apparently undoable: > > your idea might work tho if I'm visualizing it correctly. > > > > John DiFool > > Surely an 'upside down' tack would be unraceable. The downforce theory

that

Quoted text (8 lines)

> the original poster quoted is suitable for one car, but what about the > disturbance when cars race close together or collide - isn't that going to > compromise grip? > > ++ > Fillyourboots > >

"jon" wrote... > > <snip> > > Do you all think the car upside down would have a higher > top speed than the one right side up, or vice versa? Or > would they both have the same top speed? A sim car would be faster, I think, seeing as there's less rolling drag. A real car, if the engine survived being upside down (which it wouldn't), would be slower as the reduced rolling drag would be more than offset by the engine losing power due to not all of the fuel mixture making it into the engine and the the detonations not only having to overcome the torque transmitted by the crankshaft but also the weight of the pistons and the connecting rods. Jan. =---

> Are there any current games where the track editors available could be > used to demonstrate this extreme grip??? Would only work in sprint races. Pitstops might be tricky otherwise :-) MS

"Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:oJ1wb.38179$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> "jon" wrote... > > > <snip> > > > > Do you all think the car upside down would have a higher > > top speed than the one right side up, or vice versa? Or > > would they both have the same top speed? > > A sim car would be faster, I think, seeing as there's less rolling drag. > > A real car, if the engine survived being upside down (which it wouldn't), > would be slower as the reduced rolling drag would be more than offset by

the > engine losing power due to not all of the fuel mixture making it into the > engineuse a supercharger? > and the the detonations not only having to overcome the torque > transmitted by the crankshaft but also the weight of the pistons and the > connecting rods. I'm not convinced about this one, some piston-engined aircraft had the engine in an "upside-down" configuration (i.e. crank on top), many other piston-engined aircraft are capable of flying inverted, and one could always use a flat engine configuration (boxer) so that it would make no difference. druidh

Rich wrote: > One could always "fake" it by using those gravity boots that let you > hang from the ceiling. > > Actually, having a loop for a track would be very unique. > What would you name it? Rollercoaster Raceway? > I'd name it 'Monza', purely in deference to Christian Fittipaldi as came closest to realising the vision of 360 inversion there. 1993? ++ Fillyourboots

"Fillyourboots" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bprqvs$97q$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Rich wrote: > > One could always "fake" it by using those gravity boots that let you > > hang from the ceiling. > > > > Actually, having a loop for a track would be very unique. > > What would you name it? Rollercoaster Raceway? > > > > I'd name it 'Monza', purely in deference to Christian Fittipaldi as came > closest to realising the vision of 360 inversion there. > > 1993?

Hmmm - I'll have to have a look, as I think Monza '93 is next on tap in Speed Channel's F1 Decade series. Sunday nights; Spa was last night. Those full-active cars are interesting, especially when they go on the fritz. Zanardi had a huge shunt at Eau rouge when his Lotus' active suspension suddenly collapsed. I'd forgotten how narrow it was back then.

"Steve Blankenship" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> "Fillyourboots" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:bprqvs$97q$[email hidden]... > > Rich wrote: > > > One could always "fake" it by using those gravity boots that let you > > > hang from the ceiling. > > > > > > Actually, having a loop for a track would be very unique. > > > What would you name it? Rollercoaster Raceway? > > > > > > > I'd name it 'Monza', purely in deference to Christian Fittipaldi as came > > closest to realising the vision of 360 inversion there. > > > > 1993? > > Hmmm - I'll have to have a look, as I think Monza '93 is next on tap in > Speed Channel's F1 Decade series. Sunday nights; Spa was last night.

Those > full-active cars are interesting, especially when they go on the fritz. > Zanardi had a huge shunt at Eau rouge when his Lotus' active suspension > suddenly collapsed. I'd forgotten how narrow it was back then. > And Berger turned 90� and speared straight across the main straight at Portugal while exiting the pits when his active Ferrari failed and dropped the back end to the ground. Don't forget, the main straight leads into a 6th gear corner at Estoril, and there was traffic coming.

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 18:56:45 +0200, istoff <[email hidden]> wrote: ... >"The downforce on these cars is so great that if the cars were running >upside down on the ceiling, the downforce would keep them in the air, >defying gravity..." yadda yadda yadda, you've probably heard this >before.... >It would preferably not be an arcade title, to state the obvious. I >was wondering specifically if the open source sims could accomodate >this (Scirocco, Racer, etc). Yep, Racer seems to support this (I would have thought it had more trouble with 90 degrees (vertical) polygons). There is a track called 'Physics' aka 'The Stunt Track' by tahustvedt which contains a looping (and contains a ramp a la Stunt Car Racer). It's not exactly driving upside down for a long stretch, but it's nice and generates excellent replays. ;-) I even sat in a motion platform and tried the loop, but it really feels strange then when you fall down, quite intense! Ruud van Gaal Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

Aren't piston aircraft engines Radial Engines ? -Larry "druidh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:KLbwb.20$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > > "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:oJ1wb.38179$[email hidden]... > > "jon" wrote... > > > > <snip> > > > > > > Do you all think the car upside down would have a higher > > > top speed than the one right side up, or vice versa? Or > > > would they both have the same top speed? > > > > A sim car would be faster, I think, seeing as there's less rolling drag. > > > > A real car, if the engine survived being upside down (which it

wouldn't), > > would be slower as the reduced rolling drag would be more than offset by > the > > engine losing power due to not all of the fuel mixture making it intothe

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > engine > use a supercharger? > > > and the the detonations not only having to overcome the torque > > transmitted by the crankshaft but also the weight of the pistons and the > > connecting rods. > > I'm not convinced about this one, some piston-engined aircraft had the > engine in an "upside-down" configuration (i.e. crank on top), many other > piston-engined aircraft are capable of flying inverted, and one could

always > use a flat engine configuration (boxer) so that it would make nodifference. > > > druidh > >

Some - but how small due you think the cylinders on a P51 would have to be to fit into that sleek profile? -- druidh Not FAR to respond. . . . . "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:6cswb.14299$yM6.3840@lakeread06... > Aren't piston aircraft engines Radial Engines ? > > -Larry > > "druidh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:KLbwb.20$[email hidden]... > > > > > > "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:oJ1wb.38179$[email hidden]... > > > "jon" wrote... > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > Do you all think the car upside down would have a higher > > > > top speed than the one right side up, or vice versa? Or > > > > would they both have the same top speed? > > > > > > A sim car would be faster, I think, seeing as there's less rolling drag. > > > > > > A real car, if the engine survived being upside down (which it > wouldn't), > > > would be slower as the reduced rolling drag would be more than offset by > > the > > > engine losing power due to not all of the fuel mixture making it into > the > > > engine > > use a supercharger? > > > > > and the the detonations not only having to overcome the torque > > > transmitted by the crankshaft but also the weight of the pistons and the > > > connecting rods. > > > > I'm not convinced about this one, some piston-engined aircraft had the > > engine in an "upside-down" configuration (i.e. crank on top), many other > > piston-engined aircraft are capable of flying inverted, and one could > always > > use a flat engine configuration (boxer) so that it would make no > difference. > > > > > > druidh > > > > > >

"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:6cswb.14299$yM6.3840@lakeread06:

Quoted text (49 lines)

> Aren't piston aircraft engines Radial Engines ? > > -Larry > > "druidh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:KLbwb.20$[email hidden]... >> >> >> "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote in >> message news:oJ1wb.38179$[email hidden]... >> > "jon" wrote... >> > > > <snip> >> > > >> > > Do you all think the car upside down would have a higher >> > > top speed than the one right side up, or vice versa? Or >> > > would they both have the same top speed? >> > >> > A sim car would be faster, I think, seeing as there's less rolling >> > drag. >> > >> > A real car, if the engine survived being upside down (which it > wouldn't), >> > would be slower as the reduced rolling drag would be more than >> > offset by >> the >> > engine losing power due to not all of the fuel mixture making it >> > into > the >> > engine >> use a supercharger? >> >> > and the the detonations not only having to overcome the torque >> > transmitted by the crankshaft but also the weight of the pistons >> > and the connecting rods. >> >> I'm not convinced about this one, some piston-engined aircraft had >> the engine in an "upside-down" configuration (i.e. crank on top), >> many other piston-engined aircraft are capable of flying inverted, >> and one could > always >> use a flat engine configuration (boxer) so that it would make no > difference. >> >> >> druidh >> >> > >

Many WWII engines were of Radial design and usually aircooled. THe inline engines like the Rolls Royce Merlin and Griffons that powered the Spitfires and Mustangs were water cooled with radiators(the 'stang's prominent pregant belly) The Germans used both Radial(Focke Wolf) and inline(Messerschmidt) and the Bombers were also split between using radial and inline engines. I wouldn't be suprised if availability had as much to due with engine choice as design. dave henrie

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 12:28:04 GMT, "Jan Verschueren" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

>"jon" wrote... >> > <snip> >> >> Do you all think the car upside down would have a higher >> top speed than the one right side up, or vice versa? Or >> would they both have the same top speed? > >A sim car would be faster, I think, seeing as there's less rolling drag. > >A real car, if the engine survived being upside down (which it wouldn't), >would be slower as the reduced rolling drag would be more than offset by the >engine losing power due to not all of the fuel mixture making it into the >engine and the the detonations not only having to overcome the torque >transmitted by the crankshaft but also the weight of the pistons and the >connecting rods.

Err... The force of gravity is neglible in the operation of a piston engine. The weight of the piston or con-rod or whatever is always reciprocated by another piston + con-rod(or fly-weight if only 1 cyl). The combustible gasses is not flowing into the chambers by gravity either(not saying you said it was) but by underpressure by the moving piston. To make an example with restrictor plates; you can calculate quite precisely how much theoretical power you restrict the engine to by a certain restrictor plate; it's the maximum amount of air you can get through the hole with the air moving at the speed of sound(!) that is the restriction. Given this, surely the force of 1g is neglible... Now I agree that most engines, especially F1 engines, not designed to do so probably won't survive an upside-down trick, because of the problem keeping oil in the sump and oilpressure up. The Honda's were blowing up at the exact same spot last year on the Kemmel straight at Spa, because over the crest after coming from Eau Rouge they got a dip in oilpressure, few seconds later ...-boom-.

Larry wrote: > It would obviously be an Arcade racer. Real-World Physics aren't a > consideration :) > And on that bombshell, wasn't Geoff Crammond planning a 'Stunt Car Racer' update? ++ Fillyourboots

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:13:04 +0000 (UTC), "Fillyourboots" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Larry wrote: >> It would obviously be an Arcade racer. Real-World Physics aren't a >> consideration :) >> > >And on that bombshell, wasn't Geoff Crammond planning a 'Stunt Car Racer' >update?

Yes, but I hope it's not a patch to the original. ;-) Ruud van Gaal Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/