he's OLD, and he can get down for 5 hours and then continue on with his day. go Max!
i have lots of feelings, but i keep them to myself.
steel is probably best in most cases.
titanium has a strength to weight ratio advantage over steel, but is softer and not as stiff (all other things being equal). it's also more difficult to work with.
carbon fibre isn't all that crazy of an idea. some model years of the audi a4 used carbon drive shafts, and afaik the only reason they stopped was that people want their bling in places where others can see it, not underneith the car. a carbon/kevlar composite would be less likely to shatter.
titanium has a strength to weight ratio advantage over steel, but is softer and not as stiff (all other things being equal). it's also more difficult to work with.
carbon fibre isn't all that crazy of an idea. some model years of the audi a4 used carbon drive shafts, and afaik the only reason they stopped was that people want their bling in places where others can see it, not underneith the car. a carbon/kevlar composite would be less likely to shatter.
i never really liked alonso, but he drove the hell out of a slow car this weekend, and despite the fact that i'm a big fan of massa, i think he's got to become more consistent in a hurry if he's going to keep his seat at ferrari.
and for all the hamilton fanboys, what do you say about him being bested by his new teammate? nothing?
and for all the hamilton fanboys, what do you say about him being bested by his new teammate? nothing?
i have a feeling that the doods who made that are either confused themselves, or have expressed themselves in a confusing way. they are talking about horsepower curves, not torque, and it's not very clear whether they mean at the flywheel or at the rear wheels, but i'm assuming they mean at the flywheel. if that is the case then their calculation ought to yield similar results to the torque at the wheels calculation, but their accuracy is highly dependent upon good information regarding power in the very highest revs (past the power peak), especially if your gears are far apart.
so basically i'm suggesting that their theory is ok, but their implementation doesn't have enough data points to yield a smooth curve, and so using calculus on it doesn't gain anything. all they end up doing is calculating the area of triangles instead of rectangles, neither of which represents the motor's true characteristics very well.
so basically i'm suggesting that their theory is ok, but their implementation doesn't have enough data points to yield a smooth curve, and so using calculus on it doesn't gain anything. all they end up doing is calculating the area of triangles instead of rectangles, neither of which represents the motor's true characteristics very well.
Last edited by evilgeek, .
if they want to allow different technologies to compete in the same series, it's really silly to have two different sets of rules to cover each, because it will always come down to the rules favouring one technology over another.
i think it would make more sense to have the rules stay far away from any details related to the specific fuels used. for example, the rules could state something like, "combined weight of motor and (full) fuel system must be less than 300 kg" and then leave it to the teams to figure out the best comprimise between displacement, reliability and economy.
i think it would make more sense to have the rules stay far away from any details related to the specific fuels used. for example, the rules could state something like, "combined weight of motor and (full) fuel system must be less than 300 kg" and then leave it to the teams to figure out the best comprimise between displacement, reliability and economy.
i've done over 100km/h on my mountain bike. it was terrifying.
They are so secret that nobody knows them! (unless you go to the official homepage http://www.bugatti.com/ )
1st - 3.176
2nd - 2.263
3rd - 1.667
4th - 1.290
5th - 1.057
6th - 0.878
7th - 0.795
reverse - 3.579
rear intermediate - 0.710
rear axle - 3.643
front axle - 2.466
1st - 3.176
2nd - 2.263
3rd - 1.667
4th - 1.290
5th - 1.057
6th - 0.878
7th - 0.795
reverse - 3.579
rear intermediate - 0.710
rear axle - 3.643
front axle - 2.466
one option would be to bump up the performance of the current GTR's to match rl GT2 cars, and then introduce a new GT3 car to LFS, to keep the slow pokes happy.
all 3 mirrors do show the same thing. i would like to be able to adjust the side mirrors, but apparently it would take a lot more cpu power.
1) i hate you guys
2) the torque vs power thing simple, and it drives me nuts how badly people misunderstand it. to say that power affects top speed, and torque affects acceleration is stupid (sorry to say, but it's true). torque measures how much push is generated by each firing of the cylinders. power is obtained by multiplying the torque by the rotational velocity (revs), basically adding up all the little pushes into a big push. so, as the OP stated, a high torque, low rev engine and a low torque, high rev engine will perform identically (assuming they are geared properly). the thing to note is that if you are caught out in the wrong gear with high rev 4 banger, then you will have low torque AND low power, and get left in the dust. a big V8 wont suffer that weakness. so if there is a single quality of torque that makes it desireable in a car, it's the ability to accelerate from anywhere in the revs, not just in the top end.
3) downforce. meh. afaik, any negative lift is downforce, even if it is less than 100%.
4) did i mention that i hate you guys?
2) the torque vs power thing simple, and it drives me nuts how badly people misunderstand it. to say that power affects top speed, and torque affects acceleration is stupid (sorry to say, but it's true). torque measures how much push is generated by each firing of the cylinders. power is obtained by multiplying the torque by the rotational velocity (revs), basically adding up all the little pushes into a big push. so, as the OP stated, a high torque, low rev engine and a low torque, high rev engine will perform identically (assuming they are geared properly). the thing to note is that if you are caught out in the wrong gear with high rev 4 banger, then you will have low torque AND low power, and get left in the dust. a big V8 wont suffer that weakness. so if there is a single quality of torque that makes it desireable in a car, it's the ability to accelerate from anywhere in the revs, not just in the top end.
3) downforce. meh. afaik, any negative lift is downforce, even if it is less than 100%.
4) did i mention that i hate you guys?
it's very simple. when a car turns, the outside wheels must travel a greater distance (and consequently turn faster than the inside wheels). an open diff permits this to happen freely, thus allowing the car to turn without any resistance.
an lsd does resist the wheels turning at different speeds, and consequently causes the car to tend to drive straight.
so it's actually more correct to say that an lsd causes understeer than that an open diff causes oversteer, but of course everthing is relative.
good call! that was exactly what was happening. 20mm more travel sorted me out completely.
while in Montreal you must try this beer:
curbs
some of my setups hate curbs, and i'm trying to visualize (with no success so far) what is happening.
the problem is that when the inside front tire rides up on the curb, the outside rear loses grip and the car oversteers. this is in a setup that is pretty well balanced in most other circumstances.
i've tried various combinations of harder and softer springs and arbs, and nothing has made much of a difference. i have feeling that the problem is that under these circumstances more dynamic camber is being generated in the front than the rear, but i can't quite figure out what to change to even it out without screwing up the balance of the car in other conditions. any ideas?
the problem is that when the inside front tire rides up on the curb, the outside rear loses grip and the car oversteers. this is in a setup that is pretty well balanced in most other circumstances.
i've tried various combinations of harder and softer springs and arbs, and nothing has made much of a difference. i have feeling that the problem is that under these circumstances more dynamic camber is being generated in the front than the rear, but i can't quite figure out what to change to even it out without screwing up the balance of the car in other conditions. any ideas?
oil temp and pressure: yes
water temp: yes
tire temps: yes
brake temps: yes
clutch temp: no
suspension damage: no
engine damage: no
honestly, if you can't feel the clutch slipping, the handling going wonky, or the engine losing power, i don't know what to say. these are all very obvious.
water temp: yes
tire temps: yes
brake temps: yes
clutch temp: no
suspension damage: no
engine damage: no
honestly, if you can't feel the clutch slipping, the handling going wonky, or the engine losing power, i don't know what to say. these are all very obvious.
dood, seriously. stop worrying about whether the devs are out to get you or not, and start worrying about the aliens. they are coming, and just for you!
this is awesome. will the handful of people who don't know how to drive please shut up now? go practice or something.
if the physics don't fit, you must acquit! ...errrr delete!
you don't get it. there is no uninstall.exe because the developers were smart enough to not scatter files all over the place and clutter up the registry. everything in LFS is self contained. delete the folder and it's gone. there is no need to run an uninstall program.
but it seems you don't get a lot of things. i wouldn't brag about being a quitter who can't learn anything new.
why should we see past it? the request wasn't for a new race car with certain spec, it was for a car meant specifically for drifting, and adding that to a racing simulator would be stupid. nothing wrong with a powerful rear drive street car. everything wrong with labelling it a drifting car.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG