T/A Physics: Car-performance a bit 'off.. Papy?

I dont know what stuff Papy used to get the settings for these cars... but that are a bit exaggerated for sure... I just did a quick performance test: 0-100 km/h (60mph): 3 seconds! and even more wacko: 0-200km/h (120mph): in *7* seconds! - Thats close to a F1 car! I actually did 0 to 147mph in a tad over 10seconds... And that was from a "okey" start - slight wheelspin in 1st and 2nd. and without a fully optimized gearbox... If they - Papy - have and time to do it - I would be if they could get these figurs a bit closer to reality... i.e slow the cars down! -- ed_

Ed, first of all we need to know the weight of the vehicle and how much HP the cars engine developes. If you can tell me these numbers I have a power to weight calculator somewhere that will tell me what it should be with optimal traction. If you want to get a rough idea go look at some of the drag racing sites and you should be able to get some ball park figures. That being said the numbers look a bit quick. Pete "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3f419f52$[email hidden]... > I dont know what stuff Papy used to get the settings for these cars...but

Quoted text (15 lines)

> that are a bit exaggerated for sure... > > I just did a quick performance test: > > 0-100 km/h (60mph): 3 seconds! > > and even more wacko: > > 0-200km/h (120mph): in *7* seconds! - Thats close to a F1 car! > > I actually did 0 to 147mph in a tad over 10seconds... And that was from a > "okey" start - slight wheelspin in 1st and 2nd. and without a fully > optimized gearbox... > > If they - Papy - have and time to do it - I would be if they could get

these > figurs a bit closer to reality... i.e slow the cars down! > > -- > ed_ > >

> "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3f419f52$[email hidden]... > > I dont know what stuff Papy used to get the settings for these cars... > but > > that are a bit exaggerated for sure... > > "Pete" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<guh0b.733$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Ed, first of all we need to know the weight of the vehicle and how > much HP the cars engine developes. If you can tell me these numbers > I have a power to weight calculator somewhere that will tell me what it > should be with optimal traction. > If you want to get a rough idea go look at some of the drag racing > sites and you should be able to get some ball park figures. > That being said the numbers look a bit quick.

I have read that T/A cars have about 100 less HP, but also weigh in about 1000 pounds lighter, so figger something like 650HP and 2500 lbs?

"Pete" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<guh0b.733$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (23 lines)

> If you want to get a rough idea go look at some of the drag racing > sites and you should be able to get some ball park figures. > That being said the numbers look a bit quick. > > Pete > > "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3f419f52$[email hidden]... > > I dont know what stuff Papy used to get the settings for these cars... > but > > that are a bit exaggerated for sure... > > > > I just did a quick performance test: > > > > 0-100 km/h (60mph): 3 seconds! > > > > and even more wacko: > > > > 0-200km/h (120mph): in *7* seconds! - Thats close to a F1 car! > > > > I actually did 0 to 147mph in a tad over 10seconds... And that was from a > > "okey" start - slight wheelspin in 1st and 2nd. and without a fully > > optimized gearbox...

According to the online calculator I found at <http://www.web-cars.com/math/qtr_mile.html> for a 650HP car that weighs 2500 lbs, this is about correct. Actually, it came out to 149mph in 9.8 or so in the 1/4 mile. <= my assumptions about power and weight of T/A.

"Gerald Moore" <[email hidden]> skrev i melding > According to the online calculator I found at > <http://www.web-cars.com/math/qtr_mile.html> for a 650HP car that > weighs 2500 lbs, this is about correct. Actually, it came out to > 149mph in 9.8 or so in the 1/4 mile. <= my assumptions about power > and weight of T/A. Still too quick. The HP/weight ratio of the trans am cars are quite similar to the Norwegian Thunder Car series. For comparison, our old C2 (Camel Lights) prototype had roughly 550hp with 1,3 bars of Turbo boost. A good bit over 600 with 2 bars. It weighed 640kg, had huge fat slicks, very little aero resistance and did 0-120mph in about 8-9 secs with moderate boost. I'll guarantee you its faster than a Trans Am, Just look at the ALMS prototypes vs the GTs.. We ever tried many standing starts though, too much mechanical sympathy for that! On the other hand, performance at least felt about right in N2003 T/A :) /Matt

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 05:57:57 +0200, "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I dont know what stuff Papy used to get the settings for these cars... but >that are a bit exaggerated for sure... I was under the impression that the "Papy Trans Am" cars were purely fictional generic touring cars made for people to stick Trans Am or V8 Supercar or BTCC models on. Jason

"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 05:57:57 +0200, "Ed Solheim" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >I dont know what stuff Papy used to get the settings for these cars...but

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >that are a bit exaggerated for sure... > > I was under the impression that the "Papy Trans Am" cars were purely > fictional generic touring cars made for people to stick Trans Am or V8 > Supercar or BTCC models on. > > Jason

You are right Jason, it has been emphasized that they are Trans Am "TYPE" physics, not exact Trans Am physics.... generic Edward

>"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote > I was under the impression that the "Papy Trans Am" cars were purely > fictional generic touring cars made for people to stick Trans Am or V8 > Supercar or BTCC models on. Exactly. I would say that modeling a single, unique, "Trans-Am" car is quite impossible considering the large difference between models in that series (imho). Going the fictional way, creating a realistic yet-non-existing motorsports is a very good idea. Live For Speed does that quite good. I don't even know if they are going to name it "Trans Am", if there is licensing issues there. -- -- Fran�ois M�nard <ymenard> -- http://ymenard.cjb.net/ -- This announcement is brought to you by the Shimago-Dominguez Corporation - helping America into the New World...

That explains a lot, and I think it is basically a good idea, but they still need to fix the ground clearance in the setup or it won't even be a realistic fictional car. "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > I was under the impression that the "Papy Trans Am" cars were purely > fictional generic touring cars made for people to stick Trans Am or V8 > Supercar or BTCC models on. > > Jason

"jason moyer" said: > I was under the impression that the "Papy Trans Am" cars were purely > fictional generic touring cars made for people to stick Trans Am or V8 > Supercar or BTCC models on. Fictional or not - do they have to be so damn unrealistic? As for putting BTCC models on 'em - would'nt that look like a joke... a 2.0 litre 350bhp car that weigths over 1000kg - performing close to an F1! Theory is one thing, but practice is another.... and you'll not find any Trans-am typish car that will do 0-120mph in 7 seconds! (or any 650bhp 2000lbs un-supercharged stock-block car for that matter) -- eD_

"ymenard" said: > Exactly. I would say that modeling a single, unique, "Trans-Am" car is > quite impossible considering the large difference between models in that > series (imho). Going the fictional way, creating a realistic > yet-non-existing motorsports is a very good idea. Thats exactly what I'm trying to say here; it NOT realistic! The performance is way too good for such a type of car. It would be like racing a Mini on steroids (or a V8!) You might aswell fire up GTA or some other unrealistic arcade-racer. -- ed_

"Pete" <[email hidden]> skrev i melding news:guh0b.733$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Ed, first of all we need to know the weight of the vehicle and how > much HP the cars engine developes. If you can tell me these numbers > I have a power to weight calculator somewhere that will tell me what it > should be with optimal traction. > If you want to get a rough idea go look at some of the drag racing > sites and you should be able to get some ball park figures. > That being said the numbers look a bit quick.

What would you do with those numbers? Change the physics? -- eD_

I would wait and see what the official Mod brings. I guess you could go in and start playing with the ini files. I do know from talking with some of the hackers out there that these numbers can be altered. And I know of one group that would probably be interested. I guess we will just have to wait a bit and see what shakes out once the patch is released. I don't think the power to weight is too far out of kilter. It appears that they have too much straight line traction. But whether you can alter that and not effect the cornering traction I don't know. It looks like they left the HP alone and dropped the weight down significantly. Pete "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3f42b0f6$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> "Pete" <[email hidden]> skrev i melding > news:guh0b.733$[email hidden]... > > What would you do with those numbers? > Change the physics? > > -- > eD_ > >

I watched the American Lemans series at Mosport on the weekend and it appears the performance is very close to the LMP-675 class. Or I think thats what its called. These cars eat the GTP cars and remind me of the old Can-AM racers. Pete "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3f42b0f6$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > Thats exactly what I'm trying to say here; it NOT realistic! > The performance is way too good for such a type of car. It would be like > racing a Mini on steroids (or a V8!) You might aswell fire up GTA or some > other unrealistic arcade-racer. > > > -- > ed_ > >

The LMP-675 class at Mosport scraped the track all the way around on the weekend. There were running 1.5 to 2 inches of clearance. Pete "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > That explains a lot, and I think it is basically a good idea, but theystill > need to fix the ground clearance in the setup or it won't even be a > realistic fictional car. >

Ed, just looked at some drag racing numbers. A 850HP hemi in an 69 Dart runs 5.77 seconds/117.14 mph in the 1/8 mile and 9.15/144.25 in the quarter mile. The records are a little quicker. The car weighs around 3000 lbs with the driver. Adjust accordingly. Pete "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3f42ae1e$[email hidden]... > "jason moyer" said: > Fictional or not - do they have to be so damn unrealistic? > > As for putting BTCC models on 'em - would'nt that look like a joke... a2.0

Quoted text (11 lines)

> litre 350bhp car that weigths over 1000kg - performing close to an F1! > > Theory is one thing, but practice is another.... and you'll not find any > Trans-am typish car that will do 0-120mph in 7 seconds! (or any 650bhp > 2000lbs un-supercharged stock-block car for that matter) > > -- > eD_ > > >

"Pete" said: > I watched the American Lemans series at Mosport on the weekend > and it appears the performance is very close to the LMP-675 class. > Or I think thats what its called. These cars eat the GTP cars and remind > me of the old Can-AM racers. The LMP-675 class is the smaller of the two prototype classes. They got a 675kg min. weight limit and apx. 550 bhp output "limit" - meaning the class-rules limits the engine to a 3.4 litre (or is it 3.5l?) 6 cylinder atmospheric or a 2litre 4 cylinder if it's turbo- or superchargeed in anyway (and a 500bhp target limit). The LMP-900 class on the other hand, which is what won the Mosport event overall, got a 900kg min.weight, a engine rules that call for max 4.0 litre volume if the is turbo- or superchaged and probably 7 or 8 litre if the engine is normally aspirated. Bhp output in this class range from 550+ "turbo-horse" to 600+ "atmo-horse" I'm not 100% sure, but I doubt even these cars would match the performance of Papy's new physics. As for editing them later... - sure we could do that... but that would require hex-editing of the exe-file and it would also mean that not everyone get the same "equipment".... If Papy were to 'tone it down' just a little before releasing the patch - it would be so much better for us all... IMO. -- ed_

"Pete" said: > Ed, just looked at some drag racing numbers. A 850HP hemi > in an 69 Dart runs 5.77 seconds/117.14 mph in the 1/8 mile > and 9.15/144.25 in the quarter mile. The records are a little > quicker. The car weighs around 3000 lbs with the driver. These are supposed to be racecars Pete - not dragsters. It's a huuuuuge difference. -- ed_

"Pete" said: These are supposed to be racecars Pete - not dragsters. It's a huuuuuge difference. -- ed_

In article <3f42b0f6$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (Ed Solheim) wrote: > Change the physics? Maybe we should just research the cars the numbers do match. Maybe Papy sneakily produced GPL2! Ok, maybe not :-) Andrew McP

I realize that I was just trying to find some numbers to relate to the acceleration numbers you posted. Obviously the chassis and tires make a huge difference in a drag car. If a drag car of similiar weight and HP can't match the numbers you posted than there is no way a road racing car will come within several seconds of it in the quarter mile. If you are going to get picky a 69 Dart isn't a dragster, it is a full bodied car. Wasn't looking for a fight or an argument was looking for numbers to comapre it to. But I guess I'll just let you rant by yourself have fun. Pete "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3f431166$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> "Pete" said: > > These are supposed to be racecars Pete - not dragsters. > It's a huuuuuge difference. > > -- > ed_ > >

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:22:27 -0400, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote: >That explains a lot, and I think it is basically a good idea, but they still >need to fix the ground clearance in the setup or it won't even be a >realistic fictional car. There aren't any setups provided with the cars if you just unlocked the physics yourself. I haven't had any problems with car scraping with my own setups - what sort of springs/shocks/ride height are you running? Jason

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 01:16:24 +0200, "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Thats exactly what I'm trying to say here; it NOT realistic! >The performance is way too good for such a type of car. It would be like >racing a Mini on steroids (or a V8!) You might aswell fire up GTA or some >other unrealistic arcade-racer. Actually, now that I think about it, the same could be said for the Cup and BGN cars. Not too many people were complaining about being 2 to 4 seconds faster than real life track records everywhere when I brought it up 6 months ago, tho. Jason

I should have been more specific - the cars are too high and you can't drop them down past the NASCAR limits. You can drop the spring rates to minimum and it will still hardly ever scrape. That implies to me that they probably have the CG too high also, and it certainly feels that way when you drive them. Hopefully this is something they can fix before the full version. "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > There aren't any setups provided with the cars if you just unlocked > the physics yourself. I haven't had any problems with car scraping > with my own setups - what sort of springs/shocks/ride height are you > running? > > Jason

Gerald Moore wrote:

Quoted text (26 lines)

>>"Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>news:3f419f52$[email hidden]... >> >>>I dont know what stuff Papy used to get the settings for these cars... >> >> but >> >>>that are a bit exaggerated for sure... >>> >> > > "Pete" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<guh0b.733$[email hidden]>... > >>Ed, first of all we need to know the weight of the vehicle and how >>much HP the cars engine developes. If you can tell me these numbers >>I have a power to weight calculator somewhere that will tell me what it >>should be with optimal traction. >> If you want to get a rough idea go look at some of the drag racing >>sites and you should be able to get some ball park figures. >> That being said the numbers look a bit quick. > > > > I have read that T/A cars have about 100 less HP, but also weigh in > about 1000 pounds lighter, so figger something like 650HP and 2500 > lbs?

The Trans-Am series technical specifications can be found at: http://www.trans-amseries.com/ The minimum weights are around 3000 pounds if you load up 33 gallons of fuel. (weighs about 200 pounds) The cars were at 650 HP a couple of years ago. - Matt

The performance may be too good, but the driving feels quite real and good. Better than the Winston cars after the patch on RC's, IMHO. It'll be fun, even for realism fans like myself. Achim "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3f42b0f6$[email hidden]... ... > Thats exactly what I'm trying to say here; it NOT realistic! > The performance is way too good for such a type of car. It would be like > racing a Mini on steroids (or a V8!) You might aswell fire up GTA or some > other unrealistic arcade-racer.