It does strike me that the current topic of discussion is completely irrelevant, because it involves someone who has no variable throttle input claiming that a car with 1378bhp per ton is hard to drive now that the physics are more realistic.
Really?
It's also worth pointing out the huge difference between someone who can set fast laps, and someone who is a good racer. I'm not saying anyone is in any particular place in that spectrum, but remember that fast laptimes do not alone a good racer make.
Tristan, stop doing the age thing
by all means insult him about experience, skill, logic, intelligence, but age alone isn't really fair :rolleyes: you have enough ammunition without resorting to that 
Sam
Really?
It's also worth pointing out the huge difference between someone who can set fast laps, and someone who is a good racer. I'm not saying anyone is in any particular place in that spectrum, but remember that fast laptimes do not alone a good racer make.
Tristan, stop doing the age thing
by all means insult him about experience, skill, logic, intelligence, but age alone isn't really fair :rolleyes: you have enough ammunition without resorting to that Sam
It's nice to see an Irishman say that, rather than just everyone else
Sam
Sam
/thread.
You beat me to it
As for the pub one, you've got it wrong. The start line is always in the same place as the finish line!
Sam
Well, that depends on your definition of 'tame'. I took it to mean how easy the cars are to handle, in which case, the FBM is considerably more so. If you mean which one is more shouty and sharp, then - although I think the FOX is noisier and more pointable, personally - it's more open to discussion.
However different the two wings are, the parameters we're given for setting them up are similar - that is, the allowable angles are similar. We can, in fact, set the FOX's wing angle to be completely zero, while the FBM's minimum is 1/4, but the basic ranges aren't too far apart from each other. This means that however different the wings are on each car, they still can't be adjusted greatly differently - and so the feel of the car is, in fact, limited by where the comfortable area of wing angle is. If the FBM is stable at 5/5, it's hard to make it any more twitchy, whereas if the FOX is stable at 8/12 it is very easy to make it feel a lot more tail-happy.
Sam
Drag is always going to be on the high side for single-seaters. The BMW-Sauber F1 has almost 1380bhp per ton dry, and can only reach about 225mph, whilst (to use a really clichéd example) the Bugatti Veyron has roughly 530bhp per ton dry and can break 250mph. The simple design of a single-seater means that it will not be that fast at the top end, but, having said that, the FOX does feel a little slow at higher speeds - for what it is. But look at the shape of the thing - it's hardly the most aerodynamic body in the world, and the undertray will produce downforce whatever you set the wings to; so comparing to road cars isn't really a fair test.
As pearcy says, though, driving it after the FBM removes any feeling of the FOX being 'too slow'.
Sam
As pearcy says, though, driving it after the FBM removes any feeling of the FOX being 'too slow'.
Sam
I just can't see how you can say the FOX feels tame compared to the FBM. Stomp on the throttle in the middle of a slow corner in the FOX, and try to hold it. The FBM is far easier to handle, due to its lower power and softer available tyre compounds. I run the FBM with downforce usually around 5/5, the FOX more like 8/12 - and still the FOX is more twitchy. Drive both cars consecutively with the same downforce levels and tell me which feels tame.
The FOX seems to suffer most at high speeds. It accelerates at lower speeds pretty sharply, but then starts to feel like it's losing power. It's not really much quicker than the FBM at the top end, and so a more aerodynamic body shape seems to be the way to go if you really want the FOX to be faster.
Personally, I like it how it is.
Sam
The FOX seems to suffer most at high speeds. It accelerates at lower speeds pretty sharply, but then starts to feel like it's losing power. It's not really much quicker than the FBM at the top end, and so a more aerodynamic body shape seems to be the way to go if you really want the FOX to be faster.
Personally, I like it how it is.
Sam
Well, I'm sorry, but if driving a dozen different cars amongst others in cars - and on foot - in different conditions, on a hundred different days, is not experience... I've no idea where you draw the line between a complete newcomer and someone with at least some basic preparation.
Sam
Like I said - I know my experience comes nowhere near preparing me for road driving, and I will be out of my depth the first time I drive on my own on a public road; just a bit less so than most first-time drivers. The bit that irks me is that my experience, however minor an impact it may have, isn't taken into account at all. :rolleyes:
Having a tracker installed in cars by law is an extremely sensitive thing to think about, and I feel that some sort of privacy protection will disallow it. It has also been said by plenty of high-up people in the industry that any device which is not controlled by the car, entirely internally, cannot be permitted to affect the car's behaviour. Something like a GPS speed restrictor, which uses throttle and brakes to restrict speed, could also be made to crash a car, and so this isn't really viable. Trackers, though, remain quite unlikely, and the concept of trust should really make them redundant
Sam
It's nice to know that such well-read and eloquent people have clearly thought-out and justified opinions to share, isn't it? :rolleyes:
Sam
Sam
Well, we're now massively off the topic, but I just wanted to leave this last thought...
I have driven in the dark, and read plenty of new roads (and cars), but I know that this does not prepare me for public road driving. Yes, I have a desire to drive fast - when it's safe to do so. Driving on a circuit provides a vent for that desire, giving somewhere far safer to drive at the limits of your car's performance; and if you can do that, you won't feel quite so urged to make a dubious overtaking maneouvre, or push too hard on a dodgy surface, when out on the road.
I learnt in a 150bhp Audi A6 weighing 1350kg, and I never put myself in any danger whatsoever in that either. Come to think of it, I've driven a dozen different cars from 70 to 200bhp at speeds up to 100mph, and never once placed anyone in danger at all. It is not the car, or the conditions, that decide the danger level - it is the driver, or the other drivers around him. Hence my proposition for harsher punishments on sub-standard drivers, and higher standards for driving tests. The most important thing, though, is the psychology of the driver, including how likely they are to take risks, to push too hard, to drive too fast, in any given situation. Unfortunately this isn't easy to measure, and so I consign myself to the hell of insurance premiums, but I don't buy the statement that my car is an unwise choice for me - given my experience relative to most new drivers, and my respect for the car and others relative to most new drivers.
No, I'm not perfect - bloody far from it, like plenty of people - but if I didn't think... If I didn't know, rather, that I could be trusted with that car, I would never even consider driving it on the roads.
Tristan's idea about having restrictions based on power-to-weight seem more sensible, but perhaps these should be based on an assessment rather than just fixed numbers. Again, responsible drivers shouldn't be restricted by precautions taken against unsafe ones, and nor should unsafe drivers be allowed into cars that would be dangerous for them because most other people could handle them.
Sam
I have driven in the dark, and read plenty of new roads (and cars), but I know that this does not prepare me for public road driving. Yes, I have a desire to drive fast - when it's safe to do so. Driving on a circuit provides a vent for that desire, giving somewhere far safer to drive at the limits of your car's performance; and if you can do that, you won't feel quite so urged to make a dubious overtaking maneouvre, or push too hard on a dodgy surface, when out on the road.
I learnt in a 150bhp Audi A6 weighing 1350kg, and I never put myself in any danger whatsoever in that either. Come to think of it, I've driven a dozen different cars from 70 to 200bhp at speeds up to 100mph, and never once placed anyone in danger at all. It is not the car, or the conditions, that decide the danger level - it is the driver, or the other drivers around him. Hence my proposition for harsher punishments on sub-standard drivers, and higher standards for driving tests. The most important thing, though, is the psychology of the driver, including how likely they are to take risks, to push too hard, to drive too fast, in any given situation. Unfortunately this isn't easy to measure, and so I consign myself to the hell of insurance premiums, but I don't buy the statement that my car is an unwise choice for me - given my experience relative to most new drivers, and my respect for the car and others relative to most new drivers.
No, I'm not perfect - bloody far from it, like plenty of people - but if I didn't think... If I didn't know, rather, that I could be trusted with that car, I would never even consider driving it on the roads.
Tristan's idea about having restrictions based on power-to-weight seem more sensible, but perhaps these should be based on an assessment rather than just fixed numbers. Again, responsible drivers shouldn't be restricted by precautions taken against unsafe ones, and nor should unsafe drivers be allowed into cars that would be dangerous for them because most other people could handle them.
Sam
Private roads on a weekly basis, and circuit training with a qualified race instructor.
I don't have time to run through all the responses right now, I'll do so later on - but I will say I've driven a Lotus Exige for half an hour at race speed without trouble, in damp conditions, if a marker on my experience/ability is needed by anyone.
The thought of 'most teenage drivers' seems to keep recurring too, and I stress that I do not by any means propose that all drivers at the age of sixteen, fifteen, even seventeen should be allowed to drive on the roads - but that they are subject to far more stringent tests, along with some sort of assessment of their level of respect for the car and other road users, and sense of responsibility concerning driving. I think the current UK road driving test is far too easy, and lets far too many idiots onto the roads. I don't want the laws changing so I can drive in the nearer future, I'd like to see a change that doesn't penalise good drivers whilst allowed morons to carry on endangering people.
Sam
Yes, of course I want to drive - but that does not mean I haven't thought it through, and I'd like to think my posts reflect that I have considered the matter at length.
I'm not so sure - seeing as you're way above any possible age issues with driving, you don't care that much about what happens to those who might be affected by changes, so you don't much care about the restrictions and inconveniences that would be placed on seventeen-year-olds and their families by not being allowed to drive.
I would like to know what's silly about a two-litre saloon, if you're going to carry on taking the piss out of my car you might as well justify it. And I'm also wondering why you don't seem to accept that it is mine, as it's been bought, registered, maintained and driven by me.
So, I'll be a 'child' right up the point at which I turn seventeen? A sixteen-year-old is classified as a 'child' because they're not allowed to drive by this government, and is younger than you? Yes, I know it's damnably hard to assess your own age group, but that doesn't mean my attempts should be subject to patronisation instead of reasoned argument, does it?
Much as I wanted to have an intelligent discussion here, it seems we're going to fail because you're unable to treat me as an equal, and feel the need to patronise me because you think I don't have a valid opinion from this side of the driving age barrier. It's a shame I mentioned my age, because I feel that you'd respond differently if you didn't have that particular point to lock on to all the time.
If you use the laws of averages, those three points are correct - and yes, I can see where I unfortunately sit in this scenario. It's not going to stop me, but I do acknowledge it. The sad fact is that I'll have had over three years' driving experience, three years' experience of the physics involved in driving a car, and three years' teaching in the dangerous nature of driving; but no insurance company will care. I know there's no substitute for road driving experience, but that doesn't mean no other experience is worth anything.
I'm still kind of ambivalent about whether a larger, more powerful but also heavier and better-planted car is more dangerous than a smaller, less powerful but also less protected and less grippy one.
Oh, and I agree entirely with Stang70Fastback, for the record.
Sam
Well, quite:
I can imagine the problems it causes for younger people to take the same tests as older ones. It should really only be those with a great deal of experience, knowledge and/or ability who are allowed to have a driving licence at a lower age, not to mention the sense of responsibility and respect for the car. However, I do still think that the majority of younger people being too idiotic to deserve a driving licence should not mean that the few who could hold one safely are not allowed to do so. It's a tough government, though, who will impose particular tests for different age groups, and unfortunately we, er, don't have a tough government
Some sort of time restriction on re-taking the test should be employed as well, I think; if someone fails, they shouldn't be allowed to just keep trying over and over again until they get lucky and pass - because they clearly aren't ready for it. The driving test in the UK in particular is easy enough for anybody remotely capable to pass it, and those that don't probably should be made to think about it for a few months before they can try again. This might help lower newly licenced accidents too.
Sam
I can imagine the problems it causes for younger people to take the same tests as older ones. It should really only be those with a great deal of experience, knowledge and/or ability who are allowed to have a driving licence at a lower age, not to mention the sense of responsibility and respect for the car. However, I do still think that the majority of younger people being too idiotic to deserve a driving licence should not mean that the few who could hold one safely are not allowed to do so. It's a tough government, though, who will impose particular tests for different age groups, and unfortunately we, er, don't have a tough government
Some sort of time restriction on re-taking the test should be employed as well, I think; if someone fails, they shouldn't be allowed to just keep trying over and over again until they get lucky and pass - because they clearly aren't ready for it. The driving test in the UK in particular is easy enough for anybody remotely capable to pass it, and those that don't probably should be made to think about it for a few months before they can try again. This might help lower newly licenced accidents too.
Sam
Last edited by Dark Elite, .
No, I say what I mean; it's my car, paid for by me, registered in my name. Being unlicenced to drive it on the roads doesn't mean I can't own a car, despite what everyone says when I refer to 'my' car :rolleyes:
The age point in general is quite difficult to judge - as we've never seen what a large number of new 19-year-old drivers behave like compared to a large number of new 17-year-old drivers, we can't really say how much of an impact such a change would have. Personally, I do think that the majority of people who take their driving test in the UK do so mostly out of practical reasons, for independence, whatever - not people who have a great interest in cars, or who have been paying a great deal of attention to them in the time before getting their licence. Not wishing to stereotype an entire nation, but we just don't know how much of a change there'd be in two years.
Something to do with the legal age to buy alcohol being 18, not 17? I used that as a passing comment, that new drivers at the age of 18 or over would be more easily able to buy - and drink before driving - alcohol. Not a great consideration, but I mentioned it nonetheless.
I agree entirely - but who says a newly licenced driver is going to have a modern, safety-oriented car? It seems far more likely, again due to costs, that new drivers will be in cheaper, older cars - with less safety equipment. Indeed, cars less safe to be hit by too, but that's besides the point.
A new Vauxhall Corsa 1.0 weighs 1,025kg, which really isn't far off. Older cars way respectively less, too, and as above, those are more likely to be driven by new drivers. Actually, the weight distribution is more of a concern as far as safety goes - I'm thinking front-wheel-drive, lightweight cars with nothing over the back end experiencing lift-off oversteer in the wet, that sort of thing that new drivers tend not to know much about or how to deal with.
I thought you meant modifications that affected performance, as in, modifications that actually matter as far as safety is concerned.
Always a silver lining, eh
I just want to make it plain that I want this to be an intelligent discussion, not a flame-war or an argument. Better that way
OT
That comment about assuming it wasn't my car didn't chuff me up much, nor did referring to it as a silly repmobile - a mid-Nineties dark-coloured 4WD two-litre saloon sounds pretty unassuming to me, but, hell, make of it whatever you will
And having driven a Ka, yes, I agree that it is made out of very compressed tin foil...
/OT
Sam
Last edited by Dark Elite, .
To be honest, Tristan, if the age moves up to, say, 19, they're not going to have a hell of a lot more sense. They're still going to be just as much impatient, ignorant showoffs as if they'd been 17 (I'm stereotyping ) - because their understanding of cars will be little greater, and their experience will be exactly the same. They'll also have been waiting for longer, and thus be even more impatient to get out there and drive - whether they can do it well or not. More than that, they'll also be able to buy alcohol more easily.
As for restricting new drivers... Well, I'd think a 70bhp car, with no protection, weighing next to nothing, would be a hell of a lot more dangerous than my 4WD 136bhp Mondeo, don't you? And I think most modifications are ruled out by insurance costs now, anyway.
Sam
) - because their understanding of cars will be little greater, and their experience will be exactly the same. They'll also have been waiting for longer, and thus be even more impatient to get out there and drive - whether they can do it well or not. More than that, they'll also be able to buy alcohol more easily.As for restricting new drivers... Well, I'd think a 70bhp car, with no protection, weighing next to nothing, would be a hell of a lot more dangerous than my 4WD 136bhp Mondeo, don't you? And I think most modifications are ruled out by insurance costs now, anyway.
Sam
I knew the age limit was only fifteen - personally I approve of lower age limits, but only if there is a more comprehensive test and some sort of personality assessment for younger people. I speak as someone too young to hold a driving licence in the UK.
Insurance, though... That is simply ridiculous. I'm facing premiums of over £2000, but not having it is just unthinkable. Or rather, the person who hits you not having it is unthinkable.
Sam
Insurance, though... That is simply ridiculous. I'm facing premiums of over £2000, but not having it is just unthinkable. Or rather, the person who hits you not having it is unthinkable.
Sam
Take care with that... Spoilers, diffusers and body shape don't affect performance?
Sam
Well, it wouldn't be that hard to implement, I guess - LFSW already knows how much fuel has been burnt in total, and it also knows how much fuel each user has burnt, and so it follows logically that it must also know how much they used in every race.
This could lead to the interesting scenario where the leader tries to go a little bit easier on the throttle to get the economy title as well, while everyone else tries to catch up flat-out
Sam
This could lead to the interesting scenario where the leader tries to go a little bit easier on the throttle to get the economy title as well, while everyone else tries to catch up flat-out
Sam
We just can't be arsed to dig out the flamethrowers any more, it got repetitive
Something tells me the general NFS following doesn't give a damn about physics, whilst we don't give a damn about the general NFS following but, to be fair to the original poster, he does at least appreciate the worth of LFS 'as is', unlike a lot of people asking for this sort of thing.
Sam
Something tells me the general NFS following doesn't give a damn about physics, whilst we don't give a damn about the general NFS following
but, to be fair to the original poster, he does at least appreciate the worth of LFS 'as is', unlike a lot of people asking for this sort of thing.Sam
Haha, I shall have to remember that similie, Sam
Yours is the post to reference to, Hank's is the one-liner. So we've got a reaction force against quick 'give us police chases' threads, and a different one for more detailed (but still chavvish) requests. Naiice.
Sam
Yours is the post to reference to, Hank's is the one-liner. So we've got a reaction force against quick 'give us police chases' threads, and a different one for more detailed (but still chavvish) requests. Naiice.
Sam
Interesting enlightenment, I thought people played LFS because it's cheaper and more convenient than real-life racing.
SamH has ended the discussion, though, and made a post which I think anyone else asking for such things should be pointed to. Nice one, Sam
Sam
That's news to me, and monumentally stupid.
We should probably throw in some sort of marking too, for those who hold an auto-only licence - we've got the P-plate for recently passed drivers, now we should have something like the R-plate for those with an auto-only licence...
Sam
This member joined the forums on my birthday...
Thanks to whoever bought me some light entertainment as a present :munching_
Sam
Thanks to whoever bought me some light entertainment as a present :munching_
Sam
Er... What?
I didn't say anything about how mainland Europeans understood metres per second, just that most British people didn't, because of the predominant use of miles per hour here. It's occured to me that to convert from metres per second to kilometres per hour is a factor of 3.6, whereas metres per second to miles per hour is ~2.25, meaning the conversion to understand metres per second accurately is a bit more difficult for someone used to miles.
The first lesson you should ever learn when driving anywhere is that you need to treat everyone on the road like a complete idiot, so that when it turns out they are, you were expecting it and won't be taken by surprise.
But is it not bloody obvious that if the gearstick has a gear selected, and the clutch pedal is not depressed, there is nothing to stop the engine being under full load when you try to start it? If you hold a driving licence, you need to have an understanding of how a car works, and so if you can't figure out why your car moves when you start it in gear, your licence should therefore be taken away.
Sam
But is it not bloody obvious that if the gearstick has a gear selected, and the clutch pedal is not depressed, there is nothing to stop the engine being under full load when you try to start it? If you hold a driving licence, you need to have an understanding of how a car works, and so if you can't figure out why your car moves when you start it in gear, your licence should therefore be taken away.
Sam
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG