So they probably have more grip than racing slicks in the dry? Stop making numbers up.
You don't need a degree in physics to understand it, they teach this stuff to twelve year olds, without understanding the definition of acceleration, velocity, force, displacement or work you have no hope of having a sensible discussion without trying to argue ridiculous ideas.
You were talking about car control, not what makes a better all round car for the general public. I'm not going to try and argue that the Focus isn't a better car in many people's books, simply that driving it teaches you more about car control, something which you implied the opposite of earlier.
You stated your tyres were 5 times better in the wet, assuming a reasonable set of tyres is going to pull a peak lateral load in the range of 0.5-1g in the wet it only makes sense that if grip is lateral acceleration is used to quantify the tyres performance they'll be pulling g forces in the region of 2.5-5g, have to say I'd like some of those tyres you've got there. Of course your just making crap up and exaggerating as per usual.
It's commonly accepted in engineering circles that bikes, cars and even Ladas follow Newton's laws of motion. Engineers and rational people apply science to a situation so they can have an understanding to what is going on, being able to do the maths isn't important to actually get a basic understanding of the situation. Blindly ignoring Newton's laws and arguing that a smaller force over a smaller displacement at the same frequency will result in more work being done is just plain stupidity.
Is the Focus more competent? Of course it is, that's the main reason why it requires very little car control to drive on the road. Any idiot can drive it effortlessly and cover ground quickly whilst returning reasonable economy, older cars have to be pro-actively driven all the time in order to maintain reasonable pace and economy and when driven quickly they're far more involving.
Don't make up numbers then tell me I'm the one bullshitting when I use logic rather than 'what someone told me'.
All road tyres have very similar slip ratios and characteristics, tyres that bite without warning simply don't exist. If you spin or fall off without a structural failure of the tyre then the tyres can never be to blame the operator has simply pushed them too far and failed to save the situation, they have suddenly run out of skill, not the tyre. I'm not trying to imply I'm any good at driving, it's knowing that I am an inexperienced and do not possess god like driving ability that has kept me largely out of trouble, in the same way I've seen and known plenty of people who don't know their own limits and have got hurt or killed (mostly on the road but it happens on track as well) because they drive beyond them, they may be far better drivers than me but that is beside the point, I used a bit of extra caution and didn't hit that tree.
The same laws of physics apply to a Lada as your bike, in fact just as you were going on about feel and control, I've learnt far more about car control in the time I've driven the Lada than I ever did driving the Focus. My track experience is made up of the Focus and Morgan and I've rallied the Lada, it was about the fastest thing on a snowy 12 car I did in it, with narrow tyres, high ground clearance and rear wheel drive it was getting held up by fully prepared stage rally 205s and Saxos on large semi-slick tyres that were hopeless in the conditions, all that is completely irrelevant to this discussion though, as is any of our experiences when discussing basic physics.
No you've failed badly.
Assuming the damper as a simple spring in this case given that we now the applied load and displacement.
Force = k x Displacement
Work = k x Force x Displacement x Frequency
Are we agreed that load is much greater in car dampers, by approximately a factor of at least 2? Displacement is greater as well and frequencies are similar.
Therefore for the same damper with a higher load and displacement and the same frequency the work done is greater, afraid physics has defeated biker knowledge again...
:doh:
Oh there is, probably more so for cars than bikes, there's a whole world of sub budget tyres coming China that really are third rate and shockingly bad, Autocar did so reasonably good testing on them not very long ago, they compared four Chinese tyres and a set of Continentals everyday road tyres, the Chinese tyres produced substantially reduced lateral acceleration both in the dry and especially the wet, they also failed frighteningly quickly after being pushed slightly beyond their load speeds. However, if you don't buy tyres from a third world dictatorship where the standards they're meant to meet are completely ignored, everyday road tyres meet the same standards, have very similar construction and tread pattern as a result of having exactly the same criteria (low noise, economy and wet performance), the actual difference between premium brand tyres is very small.
Smaller shocks for less loading, whatever you say you cannot ignore physics and argue that a smaller loading over a smaller displacement produces more mechanical work, it's just total nonsense. Quiet where you get this idea that bike shocks are more exposed from I do not know, car shocks are hidden inside the wheel well that acts as a trap for water, mud and salt to get stuck in. If you've ever cleaned the wheel wells on a car you'll find huge heaps of crap, none of which really does any harm other than slowly eating away at the bodyshell, the mechanical components are not normally effected by it badly, hence why nobody looks at car shocks like bikers do with the things stuck in the open.
So you're pulling about 4G in the wet on the Continentals then? No, your regurgitating crap and making up numbers...
A good rider/driver feels the level of grip and behaviour of the tyre, if you fall off on a different set of tyres you're just a shit driver/rider who went beyond your limit.
They're less important on cars though?
I think Mallory is a great little track, out of the three I've tried (Donnington and Silverstone GP), which are all tracks I'd rate highly from the other side of the fence, Mallory was right up there as far as I'm concerned. Gerrard's is a real challenge, got to keep your speed low enough to keep hugging the inside of the track, I found accelrating early was very tempting, when you've done the first 90 degrees you're not even half way round it, so throwing the car about really doesn't wok, you've got to set it up nicely and keep the forces sustained for a long time. Getting Gerrard's right is fantastic though, one huge four wheel drift in the Morgan, probably a totally different corner in your car though given that you're not going to be traction limited round the last half of it I guess you do the tighter bit as a corner in itself and the rest of it is just an undramatic exit onto a straight. The Esses is a nice section and definitely best to attack as one big block with smooth transition rather than trying to throw it from corner to corner, if you don't get a good exit from them you're bound to get passed on the run up to the hairpin.
The hairpin itself is horrible, it is quite literally like going round a mini-roundabout in the middle of a race track, too tight for just about any car to take otherwise, far too many cars seem to have problems getting round it getting carried away and spinning on the exit or understeering wide, invariably it's too fast an entry and overeggerness to put the power down that cause people these issues, whilst the car strolling round it in second gear at 30mph nips up the inside and blasts into the distance. Devil's Elbow is awesome, not quite flat in the Morgan, got to aim for the apex which is in the middle of the blind dip, feels like you're throwing yourself towards the inside wall, people trip up by not turning in properly and by getting out of shape panicing about the fact they're going to run wide, you can afford to run wide round Devil's Elbow, there's plenty of track that you need to use and if you run slightly wide off the track on the exit chances are you'll get away with it or just brush the wall. Get it wrong earlier in the corner and unfortunately it is one of the truely dangerous corners left in the country with very little run off and if you're not lucky enough to dig into the gravel trap your chances of walking away are low, certainly not a place for overtaking.
Personally I'd get rid of the kick altogether (at least from the public voting) and replace it with a spectate vote, with no option to rejoin even if mid race join is on. Would be more effective than the current kick, where half the time the person is back a minute later causing exactly the same problem and trying to ban the person who kicked them in the first place.
I also think some measure should be put in place to stop people vote banning everybody, maybe if you were limited to say 3 votes an hour it would stop the idiots who keep trying to start votes against random people, normally far more annoying than the people they're trying to ban.
I also think some measure should be put in place to stop people vote banning everybody, maybe if you were limited to say 3 votes an hour it would stop the idiots who keep trying to start votes against random people, normally far more annoying than the people they're trying to ban.
A basic 6 point bolt in rollcage with single door bars, that is acceptable for just about any race series will be about a third of the weight of the rollcage in any serious GT car, even if it's built using T45 tube that is still an awful lot of weight. At work at least we do not treat the rollcage as a safety item, it's a performance item plain and simply and the single most important item on the car the vast majority of it isn't their to protect the driver. The faster a production car with a standard strutural bodyshell becomes, with higher cornering loads the more it will become hampered by its lack of structural stiffness, true competition cars need to be as stiff as possible, chassis flex is never a desirable effect in a car. I think I remember hearing a statistic that an F1 car is 6000 times stiffer than a typical road car which gives you some idea of how important it is, think of all the weight that you could save if it didn't have to be so stiff.
Conventional GT cars (of the type we have in LFS) use the rollcage as the structure of the car and the standard steel body (with most panels replaced with light weight composites as an option) simply there to comply with rules virtually unstressed and completely irrelevant to the performance of the car other than adding weight, it's quite acceptable to cut and shut large parts of the standard shell when it gets bent in shunts that don't damage the rollcage, something that should never be done to a shell being used structurally. Even these cars suffer significant chassis flex and their stiffness is limited by what the rules allow and by just how much steel is worth adding before the increase in weight isn't worth it.
GT cars with monocoque tubs in the road car (not the rare cars that have no resemblence to the production car and are purpose built racing cars with a caborn fibre tub), are normally a particuarly bad choice to take racing because you're left with a tub that is never going to be stiff enough if it was designed to meet road requirements/space and cost restraints. You then have to still use the rollcage for the structure of the car but you've got the added nightmare of having to mount the thing to the tub and the tub getting in the way and not allowing you to put the cage where you want it, as well as obviously not being possible to weld gussets between the cage and shell for extra strength.
I'm not really bothered about how realistic LFS is in this regard, but I would like to see a single button to press to restart the engine to save faffing when stalled in the middle of the track, and maybe an option to automatically restart the car when the ignition hasn't been turned off and the car is declutched?
Racing cars have the power master switch, ignition, starter, fuel pump(s) and diff pump etc. on separate switches for simplicity and complete control.
Racing cars have the power master switch, ignition, starter, fuel pump(s) and diff pump etc. on separate switches for simplicity and complete control.
LFS could maybe benefit from a really short oval, it certainly doesn't need this. As far as I'm concerned the point in short ovals is the allow close racing at low speeds, bringing cost down (both in terms of the actual cost of running the track being a small site and in terms of car preparation due to lower standards of safety required for such low speed racing), they also have the advantage of being local due to being small and cheap sites and allow contact cars to be run in a sensible environment. The long oval is about going very fast, and going very fast all the time with little or no braking and a course that should require as little skill as possible to negotiate so there's as much chance as possible to concentrate on racing.
This thing is an awful suggestion, has none of the characteristics or advantages of a short or fast oval, it is just an exceptionally boring featureless road circuit in effect it looks incredibly dull even in the WTCC layout.
This thing is an awful suggestion, has none of the characteristics or advantages of a short or fast oval, it is just an exceptionally boring featureless road circuit in effect it looks incredibly dull even in the WTCC layout.
Chassis flex is noticeable in all cars, production racing cars go to large lengths to increase stiffness as much as possible by using the rollcage to form an effective spaceframe welded directly to strut and diff mounting points, a complex rollcage comes with a large weight penalty which is still worth paying to gain stiffness.
The rF track was originally made by Madcowie for GPL for a hotlapping competition with LFS licenses as a prize.
No that's certainly not what I meant, the tyres remain absolutely critical to any vehicle. My point was that two different types of similarly constructed tyres both designed with the same set of design criteria should behave so similarly as good new matched sets that the difference between them is largely perceived in road driving.
Who knows topics are far more interesting when they go off topic
I certainly wouldn't say that about road cars, get it properly wrong on a country road and the car is the last thing you need to worry about. The same applies to road cars on tracks, they are not safe by any stretch of the imagination, sadly someone left the last trackday I did in a body bag.
It's a tempting offer that I might just take you up on some time.
Trail braking is still going to give you a small advantage on corner entry when you look at it from a physics perspective and I'm sure professional riders do trail brake at times, as well as using the brakes mid corner to balance the bike. Given that it's not uncommon for bike racers to fall off from misjudging use of the brakes mid-corner they were clearly trying to use them in the first place.
I lack some specific knowledge about how bikes work true, I also have a brain and know how dampers work and have stripped and installed them in various applications (not in bikes admittedly) and am fully aware of why they are not severely effected by getting dirty, and the assertation that dampers failing over time means they must be kept clean is ridiculous.
Pass Plus is easy and you're guaranteed to pass, it's just a case of 6 hours of lessons (or less if your instructor is prepared to be inventive). The Advanced Driving Test is much harder to get, it's a proper test (open to anyone) that most new drivers are going to struggle to pass between passing their test and getting insurance for their first car, given that nobody can actually drive a car well on the road when they pass their test.
Very true fitting an exhaust is will improve the performance of any engine. To my knowledge though (and I know it's not great) most bikes have an exhaust as standard. Simply cutting part of the carefully designed exhaust off and bolting something in its place is not guaranteed to improve performance. You acknowledge that if you simply welded a big bit of straight pipe to a standard manifold that you would get a decrease in just about everything but emissions and noise despite the fact the new exhaust was less restrictive, decatted and unsilenced?
So what? I make no claim to being a good driver and just because I don't trail brake or left foot brake in my very limited track experience doesn't mean when discussing the performance of tyres and behaviour on the limit (which is only of any importance on a track) I'm going to make the assumption that the brakes and steering are going to be used independently of each other. Equally I've also gone beyond the limit on track and road, though thankfully using some caution and a sensible factor of safety (ie. no where not be intentionally anywhere near the limit) has meant with the exception of one dramatic 100mph spin on a trackday (that I was incredibly lucky to not hit anything or turn the car over in) I've managed to get through my first two years of driving with out denting anything, that doesn't mean when I've had moments I've learnt anything about car control or the limit, you learn that by doing it right and feeling things on the limit.
Once slowly round a car park, that has absolutely no bearing on this discussion though, there's no need to do something to (attempt to) understand the physics behind it, normally actually having practical experience is detrimental because you get misleading notions and can't look at it with a fresh slate, going on what ever silly nonsense other people tell you (ie. like most instructors) will just get you confused. If the design of racing cars, bikes and planes was only done by people who had used them (let alone people who were exceptionally good at using them) then we probably wouldn't have commercial airliners or winged racing cars in the world today.
The manifold and rest of the exhaust are still wrong for the engine, getting a power gain is pot luck, the engineer who designed the exhaust system will be able to explain to you why the drop in power, increase in emissions and various other ill effects that your bike seems to suffer are a matter of simple physics. Regardless of whether the claim is actually genuine or not (I bet those graphs you produce came from an unbiased source?) the reason why you have it is because it looks good (in your eyes) and makes more noise. A new back box that looked like the standard one and didn't have removable baffles wouldn't be able to compete for sales with one that had some naff carbon effect and removable baffles even if it produced lower power would it?
IIRC you made the comment about exhaust tips on Corsas being chavvy, they are just like back boxes on bikes, doesn't mean we don't all have a bit of chavvy side at heart.
I was refering to the recent thread about calculating oil pressure which you felt the need to make 4 posts in of absolutely no use declaring how you didn't want to think about the subject being discussed.
Certificates are not needed you simply give your results at AS, there's no requirement to have them certified, in fact I don't think you can apply to uni with just A2s on the UCAS system.
Not really got getting into uni, they might ask for a pass (as in A*-C) in english or maths (obviously there only going to be bothered about maths if you're doing a course that doesn't require an A level in it). If you've done A levels any employer is going to be interested in them before worrying about your GCSEs. For some competitive university places where the requirements are high (ie. 3 As) they will take a look at them but that's about it.
They should have you AS grades.
An IMechE accredited motorsport engineering degree is a proper mechanical engineering degree, the content covered is exactly the same just it's applied to something relevant and interesting. It shouldn't reduce career opportunities and people do leave the motorsport course into a variety of engineering jobs, not always motorsport related.
No because it's stupidly over-subscribed, 180 team members building 2 cars and from what I've heard from people who have done it, little sense of direction and an opportunity to do about an hour on it every two weeks, not my idea of fun. A group project needs a small group of motivated people who have a proper interest and get on, thankfully for Brookes students there is the OUMF.
I think I got an offer of BBB, but had got AAAB in my AS levels. It's not hard to get into Brookes, so long as you get at least a C in Maths and B in physics you should be safe even if you fail the other subject, despite what they say/offer you. Actually doing the course is somewhat harder and the drop out rate is high amoung those who don't bother to work or have just blindly started the course because 'it sounded cool'.
Overall I've been pretty impressed with Brookes, the course doesn't feature enough practical stuff and the actual teaching time is a lot less than other engineering courses. I looked at Brunel as well and ultimately chose Brookes largely because Oxford is a much nicer place to be.
Look around a few places first, Brookes and Brunel should definitely be on your list along with maybe a few others that don't offer the motorsport part but still offer good mechanical engineering degrees, Swansea and Bath?
If you can do it then it'll put you in good light for competitive places asking for straight As, but from what other people on my course who did it have told me there's little content on the further maths course thats useful for the engineering maths. Make sure you do M1 and M2 though, I was given the option of doing S1 or teaching myself M2 for A2, I wish I'd chosen to teach myself though given how painfully dull and irrelevant (but easy) S1 was.
If you want to do any mechanical engineering discipline and choose A levels as your entry route to uni you will need maths and physics, the third choice is pretty free, I did DT (resistant materials), which seems like a fairly natural third choice. A relevant BTEC is also accepted as an equivalent to A levels for most courses.
There's no shortage of courses, and of course some are good some are bad and they cater for different levels. The Autosport show is the best place to actually go and get a feel for what there all like, and to try and work out what is right for you, if you can do the maths and physics and want to do a mechinical engineering degree then the majority of the motorsport courses are not what you want, a lot are aimed at producing competent race mechanics/technicians, they do their job well but may not be what you're looking for.
The better mechanical engineering degrees are IMechE accredited, however most motorsport engineering degrees are not. AFAIK only Brunel and Oxford Brookes offer IMechE accredited courses specialising in motorsport, the first two years at Brookes (and I think Brunel) are exactly the same whichever mechanical engineering discipline you choose (automotive/mechanical/motorsport) and you can change your mind after the two years.
Whatever course you choose the actual amount of hands on practical work you'll get to do on an engineering course will be very low, and very few motorsport jobs come without either a hands on practical element or a requirement to understand the needs and practicalities of those doing the work in the workshop. I'll finish the first year of my course (Motorsport Engineering at Brookes) on Tuesday and I'm sure there are plenty on my course who have never changed so much as a wheel (I'm sure some don't even know what a torque wrench is!), and this year we've had an 'Autolab' module that doesn't actually do a lot to help those who haven't done anything before, it consisted mainly of 'stripping' engines held together by the odd finger tight bolt. To be of any use to an employer you will need as much practical experience as possible, try and get some experience with a local team, most will be very willing to get some extra help and if you prove yourself useful you might even get a job as a result, when you bowl up at Prodrive with a nice shiny degree like everybody else has you need something to give you the edge
If you can find a copy of it the Race and Rally Car Source Book (~£10 second hand from Amazon) is a very good starting point and easy to follow.
Racecar Engineering is a monthly magazine (you'll have to get it on subscription or you can find a copy in good bookshops to see what its like, but they always charge a lot more), some articles maybe a bit heavy to try and read without a good understanding of maths/physics at least at A level standard, but there's plenty else in it that doesn't require it.
If you're interested in how cars work, but don't really know much then the Hilliers Fundamentals of Motor Vehicle Technology (you want Book 1, 2+3 are about electrics) is very good, although it is a clear and easy to understand textbook covering pretty much everything there is to know about cars from modern to old, and it's easy to dip into when you want to look something up.
Racecar Engineering is a monthly magazine (you'll have to get it on subscription or you can find a copy in good bookshops to see what its like, but they always charge a lot more), some articles maybe a bit heavy to try and read without a good understanding of maths/physics at least at A level standard, but there's plenty else in it that doesn't require it.
If you're interested in how cars work, but don't really know much then the Hilliers Fundamentals of Motor Vehicle Technology (you want Book 1, 2+3 are about electrics) is very good, although it is a clear and easy to understand textbook covering pretty much everything there is to know about cars from modern to old, and it's easy to dip into when you want to look something up.
It's still using the brakes dependently to balance the car, having independent brakes does allow for big advantages in car setup, allowing a car to be less edgy with extra rear braking used to keep the back end nicely balanced (like the Mclaren third pedal).
Forget about what you think/have been told and think about the physics of the situation for a change, then give me one good reason why either brake will automatically cause the bike to fall on the floor used with restraint and used at just the right time to both change the balance of the bike (which is the very reason why you say it can't be used) and to get a tiny bit of extra retardation. You may not be able to but I'm sure any racer worth his salt can and does all the time. It's exactly the same with braking round corners in a car, nearly everyone (including track schools) will implant this image that touching the brake pedal in a corner will automatically cause the car to spin and burst into flames. Of course we all know to be fast you have to trail brake, in any car without exception, of course it's up to the individual to decide when and if they are confident enough progress from the safe but slow method to truly controlling the car. However good a driver gets he only has the steering wheel and two pedals (assuming the clutch is never used for any other purpose than changing gear in circuit racing), no matter how good he is a driver cannot change the balance or drag of the car when he needs to, nor (excluding very exceptional cases) can he use the brakes independently to change the balance of the car, and of course a clutch that is actually an important part of riding fast is another tool that the fast rider can use.
Didn't think it did, your previous post seemed to imply that there was an obvious purpose of a seat cover other than looks that I was missing, clearly there wasn't...
2bhp if you're lucky, a standard manifold and exhaust will have been design to work with back pressure including the silencer/standard back box so the chances are messing about with one part of the exhaust without any thought process is likely to create lots of chavtastic noise and if anything a reduction in power.
You're right you are an idiot if you just blindly believe sweeping statements without anything to back them up, without thinking them through, whether they agree with your point of view or not. The engineering principles are exactly the same however many wheels it has so there's no reason why specific knowledge or experience is required to discuss a lot of topics, if it was this forum would be incredibly dull. Threads that you just post annoying irrelevant spam in stating how you're scared of trying to think about the problem would be a waste of time if they went on hearsay and peoples acquired 'knowledge' like bikers seem to use, rather than actual logic and thought.
No it isn't, endurance rally bikes maybe, but long distance rallies are far more demanding than any amount of standard road or race use, everyday the cars/bikes get more use than a race car/bike will ever be expected to get, for days on end, add to that the worst possible conditions, especially sand and the work load is much harder, there's no need to keep the shocks clean though.
I know what it is, I also know that it serves very little purpose other than maybe replacing support from the front of the pillion seat and possibly helping aerodynamics. The point is earlier on you were trying to justify your seat cover and fart can as something other than chavy mods for looks/making noise without actually doing anything useful. Looks are an important part in vehicles, although I think rear seat covers always look daft on road bikes, it's really the biking equivalent of a meshed up grill, the light chav tuning option that doesn't look too bad just not as good as when it started.
Tyres are still as fundamental to a car, if not slightly more so due to the fact you have less you can do to adapt to your tyres, in a car you only have three basic controls, that's it and even if you're Schumacher there's only so much you can do, on a bike you have the same plus an extra brake and infinitely variable weight distribution and aerodynamic changes to accomodate for the machine.
No they're not the loads through car dampers are much greater, and rally cars are worked far harder with dampers that are just as exposed to the elements, dampers going weak has nothing to do with the surface corrosion you might see on your dampers, the seals are designed to be exposed to the elements and should not last significantly shorter periods of time, if you're routinely replacing dampers something is wrong with them but its not being exposed to the elements.
Sorry to be stupid then but what is the point of a single seat conversion, if you're on a budget and the pillion seat forms the back of the seat (which I guess is what you're getting at) then either leave it on or chop out the inside of the pillion seat so you've got just enough stiffness on the front of it and cover it with aviation tape, I'm pretty sure it'll work out lighter, a lot cheaper, and a bit less aerodynamic than the chunks of fibreglass people sell, but then again you're not buying it for the performance advantage are you? Or even better would be a lip of aluminum attached to the front of the pillion seat and some tape, but again it wouldn't look pretty enough for you?
Great but remember a car on the limit is only controlled by the tyres and throttle, we can't shift weight around like a bike can so whilst tyres are just as critical, if not more so for a car on the limit.
You've mismatched the tyres though and intentionally or not messed up the balance of the car. Assuming the tyres are all of a similar design/intended use and compared as nearly new complete matching sets I say there is little difference between tyres that you'll struggle to tell them apart.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG