Until we see perhaps some figures for braking distances in rally cars
(surely some magazines have done tests) here is a little excerpt form an
article about Max Mosely going for a drive in McRae's Focus. I also feel
the brakes are a little overdone in the game, but perhaps our perceptions
of what a rally car is capable of are not entirely correct (although I'd
still like to see a Micra haul itself down *that* quickly):
"It was a sensational drive and the amount of grip the car has on gravel
has to be experienced first hand to be fully appreciated. It was an
extraordinary car to drive. I didn't really use the brakes hard because I
didn't have the confidence to go deep into the corners. When Colin was
braking I was amazed by their power. I suppose that all the top rally cars
are something similar, but it was certainly a whole new world for me.
also:
Three laps of the Lowther Forest stage, eight kilometers of mud, gravel
and trees, and Mosley was waxing lyrical over the skills of top rally
drivers: "you soon realise that they are in another league to ordinary
people. Colin is going a lot quicker on loose gravel than you or I would
think of going on dry asphalt in a very fast road car. It's just
incredible."
yep, I think that the brakes in RC2000 may not be as unrealistic as many
people have stated. We had the Ford Focus rally car at work a few weeks ago
and the brakes were absolutely massive.
I think I'd got too used to GPL and the dodgy brakes on the Lotus 49. Anyone
remember their first few corners on GPL ? After I'd done a few spins, trying
to feed in the power, I eventually got up through the gears on the first
straight and started to brake at the usual 80m GP2 point which was about
100m too late ;-) Compared with these GPL1967 brakes, the RC2000 ones are in
a different class.
Also, in a rally car, the speeds that you begin your braking at are
relatively low. It's mainly short bursts between corners and the speeds are
rarely over 100mph (?mv2 and all that).
I've got to admit that RC2000 is starting to grow on me.
Andy.
Still... even if we all agree that the brakes are powerfull, I have never,
ever seen a car brake from 100mph to 0 in less than 2second on gravel
traction, or 1.5second on the tarmac traction with slick tyres. F1 cars
cannot do this today. The negative G's must be incredible, still ;-)
--
-- Fran?ois Mnard <ymenard>
-- 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."
Quoted text (9 lines)
> > yep, I think that the brakes in RC2000 may not be as unrealistic as many > > people have stated. We had the Ford Focus rally car at work a few weeks > ago > > and the brakes were absolutely massive. > Still... even if we all agree that the brakes are powerfull, I have never, > ever seen a car brake from 100mph to 0 in less than 2second on gravel > traction, or 1.5second on the tarmac traction with slick tyres. F1 cars > cannot do this today. The negative G's must be incredible, still ;-)I might be confused about G forces here, but aren't negative G's when
you feel weightless? I find it very hard to believe you feel
'incredible' weightless under that havy braking!
// Johan
> Still... even if we all agree that the brakes are powerfull, I have never,
> ever seen a car brake from 100mph to 0 in less than 2second on gravel
> traction, or 1.5second on the tarmac traction with slick tyres. F1 cars
> cannot do this today. The negative G's must be incredible, still ;-)
Just to add another data point, in the Road & Trach 0-100-0 tests of
British cars, most took about 4-5 seconds to come back down from 100
(mph) on tarmac on street tires. So, give the rally cars an advantage for
bigger brakes and lighter weight, perhaps, then play around with traction,
but certainly MF needs to tone down the power a touch.
The road cars also needed about 100-130m to stop from 160kph (100mph)
Stephen
:> > yep, I think that the brakes in RC2000 may not be as unrealistic as many
:> > people have stated. We had the Ford Focus rally car at work a few weeks
:> ago
:> > and the brakes were absolutely massive.
:>
:> Still... even if we all agree that the brakes are powerfull, I have never,
:> ever seen a car brake from 100mph to 0 in less than 2second on gravel
:> traction, or 1.5second on the tarmac traction with slick tyres. F1 cars
:> cannot do this today. The negative G's must be incredible, still ;-)
:>
: I Agree, even with the biggest brakes on the market you still cannot
: overcome the fact that on gravel, ice and snow the biggest factors in
: braking distances are the traction of the tyres to the road surface.
: Peter Cook
Well, the 1G downward force never goes away as long as you stay on the
road. Break as hard as you can and you might get a -1G force that has
you*** in your seat belt for a total of -1.4 G's. It's pure math
from here.
/petern
/drunkasaskunk
On Fri, 03 Dec 1999 10:02:56 +0100, Johan Foederer
Quoted text (12 lines)
>I might be confused about G forces here, but aren't negative G's when >you feel weightless? I find it very hard to believe you feel >'incredible' weightless under that havy braking! >// Johan >> Still... even if we all agree that the brakes are powerfull, I have never, >> ever seen a car brake from 100mph to 0 in less than 2second on gravel >> traction, or 1.5second on the tarmac traction with slick tyres. F1 cars >> cannot do this today. The negative G's must be incredible, still ;-)By the way, where are people getting such quick stops in RC2000? I tried
a selection of cars last night for a quick test and found the 160kph - 0
times were in the 3.5 - 5 seconds range on tarmac and gravel, about what
R&T posted for road cars on pavement.
Stephen
