RASF1 things for us to think about

1) The roster. There is a maximum of 22 runners, which makes 21 drivers per race, if one slot is taken by the server. Has anybody been in a 21 driver race yet? Is that feasible with the new netcode? Does the Fidelity Unilateral Neutralizer (or whatever it is called) allow different years to race against each other online? Does it allow fields larger than 22? Two people can race in the same car at the same time, but they can't pit together apparently. This means the roster can be fluid to some extent. I guess if a regular isn't going to turn up for a race, they can post here and somebody else can use their driver for that week to avoid clashes. This also means we can't use an invite list like RASCAR. 2) The schedule. RASF1 would require a lot of schedule filling, so we need to decide if we want to run F1C tracks on the off weeks, or others, like Laguna Seca or Road America etc. We can't really do this on a week by week vote, there are too many off weeks in the F1 calendar, so somebody needs to sort this out in advance. We could run 'period' races, like Monaco before the electronic aids, so nobody has traction control etc... 3) Driving aids. Can the server decide which aids are allowed? F1 cars have a much higher performance envelope than stock cars, so it's much more likely that a driver without aids will end up in the wall at some point <g>. I think the aids in F1C are much more of a benefit than the aids in NR2003 to safety and speed. We need to decide which to allow/disallow, and how to police it if they are not server controllable. 4) Race lengths. We can aim for much higher race percentages than RASCAR, perhaps 100%. Depends on what people think. 5) The tyre degradation. This might need to be as high as 8x to get realistic wear on soft compound tyres. 6) Setups. Fixed? If so, to what? I personally could always get around a bad fixed setup in RASCAR, because I just thought, "Heck, I'm driving a WC car, they're not meant to be responsive" <g>. A badly balanced setup in F1C makes much more difference to my laptimes and consistency. 7) Connections. If there are 21 drivers in a race, how many can be on 56k connections? None? Five? 21? (I don't think the new netcode is *that* much of an improvement <g>). I know that i'll be a 56ker for another couple of months yet. Anything else? Nick

"Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:beks7k$6e712$[email hidden]... > 1) The roster. There is a maximum of 22 runners, which makes 21 driversper

Quoted text (7 lines)

> race, if one slot is taken by the server. Has anybody been in a 21 driver > race yet? Is that feasible with the new netcode? Does the Fidelity > Unilateral Neutralizer (or whatever it is called) allow different years to > race against each other online? Does it allow fields larger than 22? Two > people can race in the same car at the same time, but they can't pit > together apparently. This means the roster can be fluid to some extent. I > guess if a regular isn't going to turn up for a race, they can post here

and > somebody else can use their driver for that week to avoid clashes. Thisalso > means we can't use an invite list like RASCAR. No experience with this yet... we'll find out. > > 2) The schedule. RASF1 would require a lot of schedule filling, so we need > to decide if we want to run F1C tracks on the off weeks, or others, like > Laguna Seca or Road America etc. We can't really do this on a week by week > vote, there are too many off weeks in the F1 calendar, so somebody needsto > sort this out in advance. We could run 'period' races, like Monaco before > the electronic aids, so nobody has traction control etc... Suggest we follow the current schedule starting at Hockenheim and fill in the off weeks with the earlier season tracks ie. start with Australia on first off-week. We should have run about the entire season by the end of the real season. For the late fall and winter we could think about special "period" races or new tracks. > > 3) Driving aids. Can the server decide which aids are allowed? F1 carshave > a much higher performance envelope than stock cars, so it's much morelikely > that a driver without aids will end up in the wall at some point <g>. I > think the aids in F1C are much more of a benefit than the aids in NR2003to > safety and speed. We need to decide which to allow/disallow, and how to > police it if they are not server controllable. Allowable aids are set by the server. I suggest we go fairly realistic with only TC and auto-shift allowed. Realistic damage should prevent recklessness. > > 4) Race lengths. We can aim for much higher race percentages than RASCAR, > perhaps 100%. Depends on what people think. I could do 100%, but would prefer we aim for 1 hour race after practice/qual? ie. about 65% length. > > 5) The tyre degradation. This might need to be as high as 8x to get > realistic wear on soft compound tyres. Sounds about right. > > 6) Setups. Fixed? If so, to what? I personally could always get around abad > fixed setup in RASCAR, because I just thought, "Heck, I'm driving a WCcar, > they're not meant to be responsive" <g>. A badly balanced setup in F1Cmakes > much more difference to my laptimes and consistency. I think personal setups are an important part of racing. I would be a hazard on the track trying to drive an F1 car with someone else's setup. Besides, I don't believe there is a way to police setups with this sim. > > 7) Connections. If there are 21 drivers in a race, how many can be on 56k > connections? None? Five? 21? (I don't think the new netcode is *that* much > of an improvement <g>). I know that i'll be a 56ker for another couple of > months yet. Time to experiment. Regards, Spudster. > > Anything else? > > Nick > >

"Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:beks7k$6e712$[email hidden]... > 1) The roster. There is a maximum of 22 runners, which makes 21 driversper

Quoted text (7 lines)

> race, if one slot is taken by the server. Has anybody been in a 21 driver > race yet? Is that feasible with the new netcode? Does the Fidelity > Unilateral Neutralizer (or whatever it is called) allow different years to > race against each other online? Does it allow fields larger than 22? Two > people can race in the same car at the same time, but they can't pit > together apparently. This means the roster can be fluid to some extent. I > guess if a regular isn't going to turn up for a race, they can post here

and > somebody else can use their driver for that week to avoid clashes. Thisalso > means we can't use an invite list like RASCAR. If it's realistic, two people on the same team cannot pit at the same time even if they have different cars. If the game implements that then people are going to have to get with their teammates prior to the race and figure out their pit strategy. > 2) The schedule. RASF1 would require a lot of schedule filling, so we need > to decide if we want to run F1C tracks on the off weeks, or others, like > Laguna Seca or Road America etc. We can't really do this on a week by week > vote, there are too many off weeks in the F1 calendar, so somebody needsto > sort this out in advance. We could run 'period' races, like Monaco before > the electronic aids, so nobody has traction control etc... Within the 4 years that the game represents all the top teams had traction control. It wasn't legal for that entire period, but they had it. ;o) > 3) Driving aids. Can the server decide which aids are allowed? F1 carshave > a much higher performance envelope than stock cars, so it's much morelikely > that a driver without aids will end up in the wall at some point <g>. I > think the aids in F1C are much more of a benefit than the aids in NR2003to > safety and speed. We need to decide which to allow/disallow, and how to > police it if they are not server controllable. Let everybody use their aids. I don't think it makes them faster than a good driver without the aids, and it will make them more reliable, both in terms of crashing and in terms of staying on (or close to) the pace. > 4) Race lengths. We can aim for much higher race percentages than RASCAR, > perhaps 100%. Depends on what people think. Personally I can't do that. I have back problems which flare up after about an hour of seat time. OTOH since we haven't picked a time yet I don't even know if I can make it, so perhaps you should just ignore me. ;o) > 5) The tyre degradation. This might need to be as high as 8x to get > realistic wear on soft compound tyres. How about we avoid a long debate on that and simply proportion it to the race length? People will still need to pit for fuel anyway, so it's not like having inaccurate tire wear will allow people to stay out longer. > 6) Setups. Fixed? If so, to what? I personally could always get around abad > fixed setup in RASCAR, because I just thought, "Heck, I'm driving a WCcar, > they're not meant to be responsive" <g>. A badly balanced setup in F1Cmakes > much more difference to my laptimes and consistency. I cannot drive the setups that come with the game. I am comfortable with mine or with TN's and that's about it. I vote for open setups. > 7) Connections. If there are 21 drivers in a race, how many can be on 56k > connections? None? Five? 21? (I don't think the new netcode is *that* much > of an improvement <g>). I know that i'll be a 56ker for another couple of > months yet. As long as the host has bandwidth throttling turned on it should be okay for the clients to have lower rate connections.

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > 6) Setups. Fixed? If so, to what? I personally could always get around a > bad > > fixed setup in RASCAR, because I just thought, "Heck, I'm driving a WC > car, > > they're not meant to be responsive" <g>. A badly balanced setup in F1C > makes > > much more difference to my laptimes and consistency. > > I cannot drive the setups that come with the game. I am comfortable with > mine or with TN's and that's about it. I vote for open setups.

Yes, I think open setups are a must for F1C, the ones that come with the game are TERRIBLE Even if you arent good at setups, just increasing negative camber to around 2-3 degrees will give you decent grip

"Spudster" wrote...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> <snip> > > 7) Connections. If there are 21 drivers in a race, how many > > can be on 56k connections? None? Five? 21? (I don't think > > the new netcode is *that* much of an improvement <g>). I > > know that i'll be a 56ker for another couple of months yet. > > Time to experiment.

Yup... in the test I didn't see much evidence of connections influencing eachother, so we might be good on that front, but, personally, I'd like to see if throttled modem connections are an option (as my cable is going through a rough patch). I'd also like to know whether, as in Papyrus sims, one can select an IP to join a race with (cable IP vs dial-up IP). Jan. =---

"Spudster" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:JFnPa.407540$[email hidden]:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > "Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:beks7k$6e712$[email hidden]... >> 1) The roster. There is a maximum of 22 runners, which makes 21 >> drivers > per >> race, if one slot is taken by the server. Has anybody been in a 21 >> driver race yet? Is that feasible with the new netcode? Does the >> Fidelity Unilateral Neutralizer (or whatever it is called) allow >> different years to race against each other online? Does it allow >> fields larger than 22? Two people can race in the same car at the

No, the largest multiplayer field is 22, and 1 will be used by the server. Note: the driver roster page now has 22 entries, 1 more than can fit in a race. >> 2) The schedule. RASF1 would require a lot of schedule filling, so we > Suggest we follow the current schedule starting at Hockenheim and fill > in the off weeks with the earlier season tracks ie. start with > Australia on first off-week. We should have run about the entire > season by the end of the real season. For the late fall and winter we I like this idea. >> 3) Driving aids. Can the server decide which aids are allowed? F1 > Allowable aids are set by the server. I suggest we go fairly realistic > with only TC and auto-shift allowed. Realistic damage should prevent > recklessness. I feel some aids should be allowed. I personally use TC-Low, and Auto- Up/Manual-Down. >> 4) Race lengths. We can aim for much higher race percentages than >> RASCAR, perhaps 100%. Depends on what people think. > > I could do 100%, but would prefer we aim for 1 hour race after > practice/qual? ie. about 65% length. I'm with Haqsau, 100% is too hardcore for me. :-) >> 5) The tyre degradation. This might need to be as high as 8x to get >> realistic wear on soft compound tyres. No feeling either way.. >> >> 6) Setups. Fixed? If so, to what? I personally could always get I don't think you can have fixed setups and I would not want to race that way even if it were a feature.

"Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:beks7k$6e712$[email hidden]... > > 2) The schedule. RASF1 would require a lot of schedule filling, so we need > to decide if we want to run F1C tracks on the off weeks, or others, like > Laguna Seca or Road America etc. We can't really do this on a week by week > vote, there are too many off weeks in the F1 calendar, so somebody needsto > sort this out in advance. We could run 'period' races, like Monaco before > the electronic aids, so nobody has traction control etc... I'd like to see some of the oval tracks http://www.fzeri.com/xrlow/ run. I think it would be a lot of fun. Also, the truth is, I have a feeling the racing on the F1 tracks is going to be spread out quite a bit, unfortunately. At least for awhile. I just don't think there are that many simmers who can handle these rocket ships and do what the real drivers do. There are going to be a lot of off track excursions and drivers ending up alone on the track for much of the time. Oval tracks could add some close racing to the mix. > 3) Driving aids. Can the server decide which aids are allowed? F1 carshave > a much higher performance envelope than stock cars, so it's much morelikely > that a driver without aids will end up in the wall at some point <g>. I > think the aids in F1C are much more of a benefit than the aids in NR2003to > safety and speed. We need to decide which to allow/disallow, and how to > police it if they are not server controllable. I say allow them all. Whatever it takes to allow someone to drive cleanly is fine with me. As they get better, they will gradually turn them off until they are down to what the real drivers use. Less accidents and better racing. > 6) Setups. Fixed? If so, to what? I personally could always get around abad > fixed setup in RASCAR, because I just thought, "Heck, I'm driving a WCcar, > they're not meant to be responsive" <g>. A badly balanced setup in F1Cmakes > much more difference to my laptimes and consistency. I think open setups are a must. A setup that doesn't fit someone and their controller will feel like a real mess with these cars -- David G Fisher

1. Setting the FUN works differently online than offline - it won't allow you to run cars from different years online. AFAICT, the year that the host's player is set to is the only year available. However, more than one player can pick the same driver (there is a setting in the player file: Unique Vehicle Check="1", but it doesn't appear to do anything. Both drivers in the same team won't be able to pit at the same time. Another setting in the player file sets Max MP Players, but I don't know how high it'll go. 3. Yes, the server can set the aids allowed, but not the level. IOW, if TC is allowed, both high and low must be allowed. The server also can force physics settings. 6. Fixed setups can't be controlled (i.e. forced by the server). 7. From what I've heard, having 56k players or players setting thier connection to 56k (like was recommended for F12002) leads to a lot of warping. Also, low frame rate leads to high latencies. You want frame rate above 30 at all times during an online race. You can set the gravel to be "stickier", by setting the resistance to 48000.00 in the terrain.ini file. Everyone needs to use that same terrain.ini file. "Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:beks7k$6e712$[email hidden]... > 1) The roster. There is a maximum of 22 runners, which makes 21 driversper

Quoted text (7 lines)

> race, if one slot is taken by the server. Has anybody been in a 21 driver > race yet? Is that feasible with the new netcode? Does the Fidelity > Unilateral Neutralizer (or whatever it is called) allow different years to > race against each other online? Does it allow fields larger than 22? Two > people can race in the same car at the same time, but they can't pit > together apparently. This means the roster can be fluid to some extent. I > guess if a regular isn't going to turn up for a race, they can post here

and > somebody else can use their driver for that week to avoid clashes. Thisalso > means we can't use an invite list like RASCAR. > > 2) The schedule. RASF1 would require a lot of schedule filling, so we need > to decide if we want to run F1C tracks on the off weeks, or others, like > Laguna Seca or Road America etc. We can't really do this on a week by week > vote, there are too many off weeks in the F1 calendar, so somebody needsto > sort this out in advance. We could run 'period' races, like Monaco before > the electronic aids, so nobody has traction control etc... > > 3) Driving aids. Can the server decide which aids are allowed? F1 carshave > a much higher performance envelope than stock cars, so it's much morelikely > that a driver without aids will end up in the wall at some point <g>. I > think the aids in F1C are much more of a benefit than the aids in NR2003to

Quoted text (10 lines)

> safety and speed. We need to decide which to allow/disallow, and how to > police it if they are not server controllable. > > 4) Race lengths. We can aim for much higher race percentages than RASCAR, > perhaps 100%. Depends on what people think. > > 5) The tyre degradation. This might need to be as high as 8x to get > realistic wear on soft compound tyres. > > 6) Setups. Fixed? If so, to what? I personally could always get around a

bad > fixed setup in RASCAR, because I just thought, "Heck, I'm driving a WCcar, > they're not meant to be responsive" <g>. A badly balanced setup in F1Cmakes

Quoted text (12 lines)

> much more difference to my laptimes and consistency. > > 7) Connections. If there are 21 drivers in a race, how many can be on 56k > connections? None? Five? 21? (I don't think the new netcode is *that* much > of an improvement <g>). I know that i'll be a 56ker for another couple of > months yet. > > Anything else? > > Nick > >

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 00:15:19 +0100, Nick wrote: > > 3) Driving aids. Can the server decide which aids are allowed? F1 cars have > a much higher performance envelope than stock cars, so it's much more likely > that a driver without aids will end up in the wall at some point <g>. I I would be all for allowing "auto-clutch", too. I only have four buttons on my TSW2, and they take up all the important functions (no clutch pedal yet, I'm afraid). Cheers, uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ Herford, Germany \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ (52.0N/8.5E) GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 02:00:48 GMT, Ped Xing <[email hidden]> wrote: >I feel some aids should be allowed. I personally use TC-Low, and Auto- >Up/Manual-Down. I don't use any, but then again, neither did Minardi in 02. =) Jason

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 02:00:48 GMT, Ped Xing <[email hidden]> wrote: >No, the largest multiplayer field is 22, and 1 will be used by the >server. Note: the driver roster page now has 22 entries, 1 more than can >fit in a race. I've seen a server with 24/24. Couldn't join it though....:-( Remco

"David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > "Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:beks7k$6e712$[email hidden]... > > > > 2) The schedule. RASF1 would require a lot of schedule filling, so weneed > > to decide if we want to run F1C tracks on the off weeks, or others, like > > Laguna Seca or Road America etc. We can't really do this on a week byweek > > vote, there are too many off weeks in the F1 calendar, so somebody needs > to > > sort this out in advance. We could run 'period' races, like Monacobefore

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > the electronic aids, so nobody has traction control etc... > > I'd like to see some of the oval tracks http://www.fzeri.com/xrlow/ run. I > think it would be a lot of fun. Also, the truth is, I have a feeling the > racing on the F1 tracks is going to be spread out quite a bit, > unfortunately. At least for awhile. I just don't think there are that many > simmers who can handle these rocket ships and do what the real drivers do. > There are going to be a lot of off track excursions and drivers ending up > alone on the track for much of the time. Oval tracks could add some close > racing to the mix. >

That's part of F1 though. You aren't supposed to be racing nose to tail with four other people the entire race. I think its okay if we have strung out races...that's how the real ones are!

"Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bel1rb$65p5e$[email hidden]... > Within the 4 years that the game represents all the top teams had traction > control. It wasn't legal for that entire period, but they had it. ;o) Well, they had the software since 1993, upgraded every year, just waiting for the day it was reintroduced. It was never used in the races though <g>. McLaren tried their highly illegal steering operated second braking system in 1998, which was effective traction control, contravened a whole bunch of regulations, but was eventually banned moins punishment, as all the other top teams were well on the way to implementing their own versions, and it would have gotten out of control.

I thought the whole reason they re-legalized it was because they were convinced that the teams were using it but that they were not able to effectively discover it and police it. "Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bendbv$776j1$[email hidden]... > > Well, they had the software since 1993, upgraded every year, just waiting > for the day it was reintroduced. It was never used in the races though<g>. > McLaren tried their highly illegal steering operated second braking system > in 1998, which was effective traction control, contravened a whole bunchof > regulations, but was eventually banned moins punishment, as all the other > top teams were well on the way to implementing their own versions, and it > would have gotten out of control. > >

[email hidden] (Remco Moedt) wrote in news:[email hidden]: >>No, the largest multiplayer field is 22, and 1 will be used by the >>server. Note: the driver roster page now has 22 entries, 1 more than >>can fit in a race. > > I've seen a server with 24/24. Couldn't join it though....:-( Then I stand corrected. Still, I think it unlikely we will be able to get grids that high and a good experience.

In article <[email hidden]>, "David G Fisher" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (14 lines)

>> 3) Driving aids. Can the server decide which aids are allowed? F1 cars >have >> a much higher performance envelope than stock cars, so it's much more >likely >> that a driver without aids will end up in the wall at some point <g>. I >> think the aids in F1C are much more of a benefit than the aids in NR2003 >to >> safety and speed. We need to decide which to allow/disallow, and how to >> police it if they are not server controllable. > >I say allow them all. Whatever it takes to allow someone to drive cleanly is >fine with me. As they get better, they will gradually turn them off until >they are down to what the real drivers use. Less accidents and better >racing.

In this case, I think the driving aids make you faster instead of slower. That gives someone who doesn't want to use TC(for example) a disadvantage over someone who uses it... Eldred -- Help find missing child: Tatianna Ashley Chillcutt from Michigan(info on my homepage) Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

[email hidden] (EldredP) wrote in news:[email hidden]: > In this case, I think the driving aids make you faster instead of > slower. That gives someone who doesn't want to use TC(for example) a > disadvantage over someone who uses it... There are plenty of really fast guys who run with zero aids. Those guys are several seconds faster than I can manage using TC-Low, and Auto- Up/Manual-Down. I really don't think it's a big advantage to be allowed those aids. Some of the other aids would actually make you slower in fact. I was really struggling at one point until I found out I accidently had the Steering Aid-Low enabled. Oops!

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

Quoted text (9 lines)

> In article <[email hidden]>, "David G Fisher" > <[email hidden]> writes: > > >> 3) Driving aids. Can the server decide which aids are allowed? F1 cars > >have > >> a much higher performance envelope than stock cars, so it's much more > >likely > >> that a driver without aids will end up in the wall at some point <g>. I > >> think the aids in F1C are much more of a benefit than the aids in

NR2003 > >to > >> safety and speed. We need to decide which to allow/disallow, and how to > >> police it if they are not server controllable. > > > >I say allow them all. Whatever it takes to allow someone to drive cleanlyis > >fine with me. As they get better, they will gradually turn them off until > >they are down to what the real drivers use. Less accidents and better > >racing. > > In this case, I think the driving aids make you faster instead of slower.That > gives someone who doesn't want to use TC(for example) a disadvantage over > someone who uses it... > > Eldred Well there's some that must be allowed, like TC because that's what the real drivers have available to them. If someone doesn't want to use it for whatever reason, then that's their choice. Auto shifting is another one that should be allowed. There is some form of auto shifting in the real cars (plus the ability to override it). A sim wheel would have to have F1 paddle shifters or you can't shift these cars properly. I have a wonky left paddle right now on my Ferrari wheel and I don't have a clue how to fix it. Some times it works, and some times it doesn't. Cut out on me in a RASCAR race a few races back. I can use the hand shifter with the NASCAR cars of course, but not with the F1 cars. Based on what I've seen in RASCAR, and after racing online for six years now, I'd just rather let people use whatever they need to race cleanly. The less accidents (and especially the less I get caught up in), the better. I don't care if it gives them some speed. It won't be enough to let a beginner or struggling driver beat me, and a better driver most likely won't use them. David G fisher

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:06:39 -0400, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I thought the whole reason they re-legalized it was because they were >convinced that the teams were using it Well, "they" in this instance was basically just Ron Dennis.

"Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:benftt$7718d$[email hidden]... > I thought the whole reason they re-legalized it was because they were > convinced that the teams were using it but that they were not able to > effectively discover it and police it. That was the reason for all the electronic stuff, because some of it was very well hidden, and damn hard to detect. Traction control is pretty obvious though, you can't hide it all that well <g>

The way it is currently implemented would certainly be hard to hide, but there is more than one way to do it. Using electronic throttle control, for example. "Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:besigf$8ik1r$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > That was the reason for all the electronic stuff, because some of it was > very well hidden, and damn hard to detect. Traction control is pretty > obvious though, you can't hide it all that well <g> > > >

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:04:39 -0400, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote: >The way it is currently implemented would certainly be hard to hide, but >there is more than one way to do it. Using electronic throttle control, for >example. Yep, but is it worthwhile? Effective? It mostly wasn't illegal either, if you didn't use a wheel sensor, but did a so called "closed loop" system, which btw I believe is what the MotoGP bikes use right now. But is it TC or just engine management for driveability?

You could certainly argue that anything that doesn't use a wheel sensor isn't true traction control. Hell, I could argue that short shifting is traction control. I could argue that high lift cams are a traction control device. OTOH we have had Paul Tracy recently saying they had traction control in CART for several years before it was legal, and nobody noticed. What were they doing if nobody could tell? And Booty Barker seems to think some people in NASCAR have traction conrol. In both of those cases I suspect it is really just engine management. What is actually being used in F1 today? What was CART using while it was legal? Since they talk so much about having to map the track to get it to work I was under the impression it fell more under the category of engine management and did not use a wheel sensor. Regardless, and getting back to the original subject, I see no reason why people in RASF1 shouldn't use traction control, regardless of season. The aliens have always claimed that they are faster without it, so what is the harm in letting people have it? "Magnus Svensson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Yep, but is it worthwhile? Effective? It mostly wasn't illegal either, > if you didn't use a wheel sensor, but did a so called "closed loop" > system, which btw I believe is what the MotoGP bikes use right now. > But is it TC or just engine management for driveability? > >

"Magnus Svensson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:04:39 -0400, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >The way it is currently implemented would certainly be hard to hide, but > >there is more than one way to do it. Using electronic throttle control,for

Quoted text (7 lines)

> >example. > > Yep, but is it worthwhile? Effective? It mostly wasn't illegal either, > if you didn't use a wheel sensor, but did a so called "closed loop" > system, which btw I believe is what the MotoGP bikes use right now. > But is it TC or just engine management for driveability? >

Engine mapping has been used in F1 throughout the on/off stuff (1994-). It's not TC by any stretch of the imagination. TC needs more input than just the throttle opening.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 20:38:13 +0100, "Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> Yep, but is it worthwhile? Effective? It mostly wasn't illegal either, >> if you didn't use a wheel sensor, but did a so called "closed loop" >> system, which btw I believe is what the MotoGP bikes use right now. >> But is it TC or just engine management for driveability? >> > >Engine mapping has been used in F1 throughout the on/off stuff (1994-). It's >not TC by any stretch of the imagination. TC needs more input than just the >throttle opening.

I wasn't talking about engine mapping, but rather engine management in the general sense like closed loop TC. The way I understand it closed loop traction systems that was rumored limited the way the engine changes rpm i.e. the delta of the rotation speed over time. If the engine exceeds what it "should" do(on a given gear) you could restrain it a bit by reducing the throttle(w/drive by wire) to get on the rpm change rate curve. The response time however is much greater than "proper" TC with wheel sensors and ignition control, and it is reliant on doing a _lot_ of finetuning, so that's what I meant by if it was worthwhile. It's more a way to help limit wild wheelspin than keeping it on the edge of traction.

"Magnus Svensson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> I wasn't talking about engine mapping, but rather engine management in > the general sense like closed loop TC. The way I understand it closed > loop traction systems that was rumored limited the way the engine > changes rpm i.e. the delta of the rotation speed over time. If the > engine exceeds what it "should" do(on a given gear) you could restrain > it a bit by reducing the throttle(w/drive by wire) to get on the rpm > change rate curve. The response time however is much greater than > "proper" TC with wheel sensors and ignition control, and it is reliant > on doing a _lot_ of finetuning, so that's what I meant by if it was > worthwhile. It's more a way to help limit wild wheelspin than keeping > it on the edge of traction.

Oh I see what you mean. The problem with using that as a TC system is that different corners on the same track would require different settings in a system like that, because things like camber and incline of the track change the amount of power needed to maintain a given slip ratio. Also, if the car does get away from the driver a bit, a system like that would prevent him from keeping the car under control as well as he might under normal circumstances. An easier system which would have the same effect as that is to have a 'low-sensitivity zone' (I think that's what they call it in racing sims) on the throttle in low gears to give the driver more pedal movement, and thus more accuracy. So you're right, it's not really as accurate or effective as TC, but it would work if the driver sneezed and accidentally mashed the throttle <g> At the end of the day, the drivers are pretty damn good at being their own TC systems. The real benefit of electronic TC is to stop the rear tyres becoming smoke so quickly.