Quote from tristancliffe :

Lots of times. There is such a thing as a chassis that is too stiff. Chassis flex in cars is a very important aspect of their design, and they don't simply make them as stiff as possible. Gains can only occur when the flex is substituted elsewhere in the suspension, and in many cases low profile tyres and limited suspension travel (yes, on road cars) means that chassis flex is important. Drive any new BMW on run-flat tyres and tell me that the TERRIBLE ride couldn't be improved with a bit of give in the chassis.
I think you'll find that the drivers prefer the mechanical diffs
It's not just the finite nature of it, but the environmental impact too. So...
I think you'll find there is a lot more oil out there than we know about
Aha, yes, you can make it from plants too. Which means cutting down the trees to make space for the huge fields of oilseed etc, which means even less trees to keep the atmosphere going. You see, there is no solution that involves burning oil at the moment that DOESN'T harm the environment just as much as any other. Vege oil diesels are no better for the environment than dino oil as you put it.
Yup it has. And it's still awful! Almost negliably compared to diesel emmisions, but of course there is some added risk yes.
Only if petrol technology doesn't improve too. It will, and I firmly believe that diesel will always be playing catch up. And by the time it does we'll have something 'better' like Fuel Cells or something.
The lack of throttle means that there is less work done on the piston crown on overrun, resulting in less engine braking. This is partly, though not entirely, offset by the larger compression ratios and cylinder friction, but I still have yet to drive a diesel with as much engine braking.
Aha, cheap digs at dawn!
All all the vehicles in the world, I would enjoy a diesel (yuck) off-road (yuck) 4WD (yuck) car the least, but yes I have done a bit in the aforementioned excuses for transport. And I felt the off-throttle performance (i.e. engine braking) was stronger, more predictable and easier to modulate in the petrol (throttled) vehicles.Yeah, in about 10 - 15 years they will be as light as petrol engines.When, not if, but the when is still a long way away.
James, I perfectly fine with option as long as you have some valid reasons to back them up, but please, don't resort to blind fanboyism. And please don't just love new technology or technology over the horizon just for the sake of it. And please don't hate old technology just because a magazine says something newer is better.

I have nothing against new technology. But it's either trying to gain public opinion ('Wind Power is Good' says government. 'Okay, we believe you' says gullible public), or to sidestep emissions legislation (Use LRP, it's better honest) in many many cases. With regards computer control and driver aids in road cars it's simply because driving standards are falling WORLD WIDE, partly because people are too lazy to learn how to drive, and partly because they don't need to learn because the computers compensate. But then they need more computer aids to compensate for the humans being slightly lazier each time than they expected.

This is a discussion about Vtec engines, and not the rights and wrongs of diesels. Start a new thread if you really want to discuss it, but this is the wrong place.

Note the EVOs use ACD and AYC, things meant to simulate ideal differentials to get the most out of a chassis. However, note the current Evo is ultimately limited by its 235 width tires. The EVO X will have 255 tires to bridge the gap between its massively overtyred European rivals. As for diff preference, I've not been lucky enough to interview the current WRC guys yet, but when winning really counts, drivers tend to prefer whatever get's them a win. Having computer controlled diffs doesn't really make the car less easy to crash at the absolute limit as seen by these drivers. Actually, one reason they banned active diffs for top drivers in WRC is the ever increasing cornering speeds afforded by partly near ideal diff behavior.

Chasis stiffness. Well, no one is actually aiming for SOFTER chassis these days for obvious reasons. Soft chassis are annoyingly insensitive to suspension setup changes. Chasis flex isn't as precisely controlled as suspension motions, being notoriously underdamped. It doesn't feel so bad with the sphagetti noodle morgans (not all morgans are THAT soft though) because their natural frequencies are so low and you don't perceive the oscillations so well. The worse case I've actually had IRL is the Nissan Patrol. It flexes so much that it actually pops the real door quite often while negotiating axle crossing terrain off road.

Last time I checked, the current luxury BMWs have computer controlled ARBs and Dampers to provide brilliant ride even with the stiff low profile sidewalls. It's actually easy to deal with stiff sidewall induced jigglyness. Just use speed sensitive dampers that have high speed blow offs that provide lower rates of damping force increase with speed at predefined blow off damper speeds. With computer control, this is only a software tweak away.

As for the Diesel, I'll like to further discuss this with you in another thread that's more Diesel vs Petrol Oriented. It's rather hard to explain my points without getting long and VERY technical. On that note, don't worry about chopping trees for biodiesel. One example is Malaysia, a place where there's already a serious overproduction of plam oil, so much so that prices are terribly low. If the current initiative to make biodiesel work pulls through, it'll definitely do more good than harm. I'll start a proper Diesel thread when I've got time and try to properly explain everything that matters. I'm not hating all petrols, I'm just saying that if biodiesel works as it should, there's more sustainable hope. Trees need a lot of CO2 to make oil BTW. Might as well use the already deforested areas to make biodiesel than leaving them to rot. And there's always the option of super efficient algea. And do note that diesels have moved much faster than petrol in the past 10 years than petrol ever has in the past 20 years. The latest BMW production diesels make max power arund 4700rpm and redline at 5500rpm. That's no worse than a current Aussie V-8 sedan (5500rpm redline too).

BTW, I happen to have seriously upgraded to adjustable dampers on my Pajero and the difference is amazing. What used to feel like a washboard now feels like almost nothing. If it wasn't for the fact that I visually scan the terrain ahead of me as I drive and the tiny bit of tire rumble, I wouldn't feel a thing. And speed bumps are actually most comfortable when taken at faster tha the usual sub 20km/h speeds. The "miracle" of a high speed blowoff valve. What matters even more is that the dampers are MUCH stiffer at low damper speeds for precise roll rate control and transient handling. All this with no electronics or computers, just some well balanced settings attained by adjusting stiffness knobs.

I rather enjoy discussing technical issues with someone like you too, but you're rather quick to accuse me of fanboyism. I just say things as observed, not blindly believing some overglorified import tuner crap. BTW, I DON'T subscribe to that crap. I am not anti old tech. Otherwise, why would I prefer to dirve with no nanny tuned TC and ABS IRL? Because it actually works better for me. I like technologies that work well, old or new. I read RACECAR ENGINEERING. One reason WHY I play LFS.

As on VTEC. I've driven 1.6L VTEC Civics IRL, and let's just say the lack of low end torque is horrid. At least it runs like hell at high revs. As kaynd explained, wild cam all the time isn't always idea, since the valves must be tuned to ensure gas flow velocties and so on. FYI, the optimum switychover point for VTEC is very close to 5000rpm.

BTW, if I remeber correctly, the latest i-VTEC has 3 stages of valve settings. If tuned correctly, this would be a major boon for both racing and roadcar use. The reason variable valves are not used in racing are wide and varied, but one includes the rules. It's unfortunate that almost everyone's going NASCAR these days. Well, F-1 has become so technically restrictive now it is has fast become formula irrelevant. And those oxymorons try to make relevance by allowing hybrid drivetrains. Amazing.

Anyway, no LFS cars have VTEC, accept for the lousy turbo model that gnerates VTEC like behavior

Last edited by Jamexing, Mon 9 Oct 2006, 05:10.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Some Morgans ARE cool (and I don't like English cars generally), and the wooden chassis is actually a very clever and good idea. All the strength of wood, with predictable flex, low cost and not that much weight. A natural composite - in fact I think a LOT of modern cars would benefit from a bit of woody goodness in their chassis!

Whilst computer controlled cars cannot break the laws of physics, and whilst undoubtedly a good driver is needed to extract the maximum from them, the point of the electronics is to make crap drivers fast. I'm old school in so much as I think crap drivers should either a) not drive b) learn to drive or c) die (yes I think c, even though my brother was killed in a road accident - I'm a firm beleiver that cars should be able to kill, and I don't want a spotty 17 year old programmer deciding that that last mm of throttle travel won't be allowed. It's what gives you an incentive to not push the limits, drive safely and learn what you are doing. No airbags in my car, or TC, or ABS. And a nice flexible chassis to put the engine in my lap - perfect!).

Evo's are, quite simply, for people who can't drive a proper car

Yes I dislike diesels. Mainly because they are worse for the environment, are heavier, more expensive, sound crap, are rev capped, don't have much engine braking, and are considered by some to be the future. Sure they might give you better mpg's on the road, but for every mile you are giving more people cancer. Whooo! On an individual basis I am prepared to accept that aspects of diesels are great, but on a general basis I am against them. When they can produce an unthrottled gasoline engine on an economic scale for better part load efficiency I think we'll see diesels die. And unthrottled gasoline engines are the focus of lots of research, so I think it's only a matter of time

Edit: The only reason I seem to argue with you a lot James is because a) you know your stuff and b) you're as arrogant and opinionated as me. I'm just glad we do agree on some stuff, otherwise we'd just end up hating each other

When was the last time chassis flex is good for handling precision? And judging from what you say about cars with computer controlled differentials, professional rally driver in Lancer Evolutions/Subaru Stis/Citreon Xsaras are all crap drivers. A list that includes Sebastain Leob, Tomi Makinen, Marcus Gronholm, etc. Next time you such a thing, you might as say that all the current WRC drivers are no skill hacks of no driving ability.

Just to illustrate that sweeping statements make no sense.

Homogenous Petrol combustion is known to me as well, but the truth is petrol is getting real old. It's dino oil based, and no matter how much oil is currently left, it's FINITE. Even though new sites are found every now and then, ACCESSABILITY WILL be increasingly difficult and *EXPENSIVE*. I wonder if you are willing to pay 10 pounds per liter of petrol before you frigure that it's hopeless to adamantly stick to petrol in the long run. Unless of course you couldn't care less about your future generations.

Diesel, on the other hand, has multiple sources, so it's not utterly dependant crude oil alone.

Oh, while you're away, diesel technology has gone a LONG way from the 70's smokers. As if petrol engine emmisions don't cause cancer at all. The solutions for the NOx problem are now well within reach. Don't be surprised that 5 years from now all new diesels would have no more and possibly even less NOx emmsions than contemporary petrols.

Diesels have NO ENGINE BRAKING? Is this a reverse logic universe? When was the last time a diesel manual car lost to a petrol car with almost all else equal in the engine braking department? Even with taller gearing usually used for diesels, they STILL consistantly beat all petrols in the engine braking department. I guess you've never driven Diesel Off-Road 4WD vehicles before.

On the weight front, diesels have made startling progress thanks to materials and design technologies used for the AUDI R10 , which WILL be applied to poductions cars very soon. Don't be surprised if Diesels will soon be not significantly heavier than contemporary petrols.

Tristan, I'm perfectly fine with opinions as long as they have some valid reasons to back them up, but please, don't resort to categorial hate. And please don't discount new technology that is now widely available before you make an opinion.

Last edited by Jamexing, Fri 6 Oct 2006, 13:57.

Quote from z3r0c00l :

Blowtus - I understand it's very much like VTEC, I just thought another, perhaps more extreme example might be worth a mention.

Does anyone know how much power does a VTEC engine lose low end with the VTEC stuck in the high rpm profile?

My main point, hence the bolding, is that while it's good for the street, it's bad for performance on the track. Air conditioning is good for street use, but that costs a lot of petrol, and a lot of power, and as such no track car is going to have it. I think since in LFS they are ALL track cars, VTEC doesn't really need to be coded in either. I'd rather the time was speant developing something else.

Last time I checked, AC WILL be COMPULSORY in closed top Lemans cars next year if I remeber correctly, but it'll be so sooner than latter. Only very small (less than 1mm (0.3mm to be exact) for a 25mm restrictor) increases in air restirctor sizes are required to level the performance.

Just to clearify things, VTEC is meant to simply provide multiple cams for one engine, i.e. 2 engines in one. That's the real practical point of it. Unfortunately it does act like an annoying on/off switch. As for increased power, it does so if its high speed cams are of a profile just as aggressive as full blown race cams. The good news would be of docile handling at low (such as below 3000rpm) revs used on the street.

However, the IDEAL cam would have infinitely variable lift and timing settings. Some variable cams such as Ferrari's use a shaft that slides forwards and backwards as such longitudinal regions represent different timings and lifts, allowing an almost infinitely variable cam adjustments in real time.

Last time I checked, the V-8 Renault F-1s were FORCED to adopt 7 speeds as its variable air intakes that helped produce excellent powerbands was BANNED. Hate it when F-1 forces technological mediocrity with the excuse of "better" racing.

Last edited by Jamexing, Fri 6 Oct 2006, 12:23.

Quote from Blowtus :

man I love the way you can just wade into a thread, throw some cool car names around, and develop a scientific conclusion out of it!

If you're on a race track and never drop below 4000rpm, the area under the curve below 4000 rpm is irrelevant...

I CAN scientifically prove that cars with fat mid to high range torque tend to be faster especially on the twisty track with megabytes worth of calculations and data, but I simply used RL examples for the sake of clearity and practical context.

I should have mentioned that a broad and fat mid to high range torque curve is what REALLY counts for racing applications. 4000rpm? That depends on what engine you're talking about. For a racecar with a 7000rpm redline, torque at 4000rpm would be considered mid range torque. This rpm region would be very important for corner exits at the slower corners, such as haripins.

IRL, shifting takes time, which slows the car down as no drive is transmitted to the wheels. Which is one reason why a broad torque saves lap times. The only racing transmission with no shift time is the zeroshift, but excess gears are just a waste of space and weight. Besides, attempts to make numerous gears fit into confined spaces tend to end up with less robust gears.

And Tristan, no offense but "coolness" is a "quality" that's simply too subjective on itself. Some people think old morgans are cooler than all other cars, but how's a sphagetti noodle wooden chassis going to help? It just gets nowhere.

Yes, Lancer Evolutions are high tech showcases, but the whole point is simply to extract the most of the car's potential. Computers onboard the EVO help optimise grip and handling, but do NOT break the laws of physics. Besides, its still takes exceptional skill to get the most out of them, unless you think someone like Tomi Makinen is a nancy boy.

I prefer to aprreciate cars for what they are, not via sweeping categorizations. I guess you hate diesels no matter how good they get. Just a hunch.

Quote from sinbad :

Heh yeah, better tell those Raceabout guys to get to work then

I understand the hoods being an option on the "road" LX cars. If we even got a racing version, though, I would fully expect (and hope) that the hood is not an option. Ahh how long have we been asking for a slick-shod racing LX? No screen, no lights, full roll-cage, panel over the removed passenger seat, less weight, maybe a slightly wider track. Wouldn't even have to be more powerful than the LX6 to be fun (for me anyway). They must surely be saving it for S3. Shame.

A 250hp, stripped out LX-6 with slicks would surely be fun. BTW, I would personally prefer the choice of a properly designed and built removable carbon fiber hardtop to improve aero on higher speed tracks. 5kg less weight vs 5kph of extra top speed. Hmm...

BTW, good point with the Rain-X. Don't drive without it! Personally I use it on all of my cars. Nothing like some extreme hydrophobicity to bead up and repel rain via aero pressure alone.

Quote from Bob Smith :

Indeed, the aerodynamics is very simplistic at this stage.

But the hood will be useful when racing LXs in the rain.

Good point. Forgetting to put the roof on in the rain leads to a waterlogged and subsequently flooded interior, adding excess mass and messing up the handling with the water sloshing around. Not to mention an obscured helmet ruining your visibility.

BTW, LFS aeros are currently VERY incomplete, but the downforce cars are the ones that are the worse, especially the GTRs. 3 absolutely different shapes with exactly the SAME areo? Amazing.

IRL, poorly designed soft tops flap like mad and could even get sucked off at the velocities the LX-6 is easily capable of.

Last edited by Jamexing, Fri 6 Oct 2006, 10:45.

Speaking of VTEC and powerbands, I'll like to clarify why a broad and smooth torque band extending from mid to high revs is essential to EVERY form of racing.

Case study 1:

Renault F-1 V-10s. They stuck to 6 speeds because theri beautiful torque bands on't require too many gears to keep the revs within the useful range. Thanks to this, Renaults have the best launch and corner exit perfoemance almost all of the time.

Case study 2:

Rally cars. This is one arena where mid range torque dominates, especially at those super narrow and twisty stages where narrow powerbands allow no room for throttle control since you're too busy shifting gears mid corner.

Case study 3:

Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution XI. A car famous for MAJOR mid-range punch. Since 4WD allows the use of all 4 wheels to generate traction, the wide and powerful torque band is exactly what it needs to make the most of the superb traction.

Case study 4:

Audi R10. 1100nm peak torque, 650+hp. Powerband is from 3000-5000rpm, redlining at 5500rpm. In fact, it's torque band is so wide and powerful that it needed only FIVE gears. The wide torque band is a major reason for its incredible record breaking lap times. Even if its power and torque were doen 5%, it'll still be ultra competitive. Besides, drivers love it because: "It's so much fun to drive!".

Conclusion:
It's area under the power and torque curves that REALLY count, not peak power alone, in real life driving and racing applications.

BTW, VTEC/VVTL-i controllers are brilliant ways to unleash the full performance potential of their respective engines. They allow drivability and economy at lower revs while changing to a full performance cam grind at high revs. A friend of a friend of mine installed a VVTL-i controller to his Corolla Sportivo and in its current setting, easily smokes my friend's fully OEM car despite of nothing more than a change from 195/55/16 to 215/45/17 wheels and tires. It was set by the installers for maximum midrange to peak rpm power. Although peak power was practically unchanged, the car was transformed from gutless to glorious with just some positive changes to the VVTL-i switchover points. Spinning the front tires at 3rd gear at midrange rpms?Definitely impossible with OEM settings.

Quote from george_tsiros :

Is it that difficult to control the clutch? I thought every driver worth his salt has enough clutch technique to start most usual cars uphill without using the accelerator let alone drive a car like that without stalling it

True for cars with normal clutches with smooth bite. Fully dedicated race clutches such full blown sintered iron clutches aren't exactly forgiving. They tend to act like button clutches, whith VERY tightly defined bite points. They are very difficult to slip. In fact, true full blown professional racecars inevitably stall without the correct amount of starting revs.

AS for the FQ400, it's clutch is designed to survive the full fury of it's 400hp monster consistantly, so it needs to be VERY grabby. BTW, LFS doesn't simulate real clutch behavior yet.

Quote from duke_toaster :

Group B level would be insanely fun ... but hard to control. I would like to see it in the 45s region on BL2.

I'd like it be like the FO8 or FZR. It's fast but every time you make a mistake it punches you in the nuts... proverbially.

If the 450hp RB4 I proposed is properly implemented in LFS, 45s in BL2 are relatively easy, provided with the proper wheels and tires of course. And very powerful rallycars at the absolute limit aren't exactly forgiving.

Quote from duke_toaster :

RB4 Rallycross (like one of those mindbogglingly fast Group B cars on steriods that did Rallycross once they got banz0red from the WRC) FTW!

I ask for a rally RB4 of the same specifications as I've previously mentioned accept for 3 parameters:

Engine: 2.5L I4 Turbocharged, Intercooled.
Power:450hp
Torque: 580nm

Not quite group B level (600+hp!), but enough to do similiarly fast times on twisty and narrow rally tracks. Simulate a variable vane turbo to virtually eliminate lag and generate beautifully fat powerbands.

Quote from herki :

And they eat their driver's for breakfast too! For trackday-use, the FQs might be good, but you definatly should stick to a normal Evo if you wanted a car, which you don't stall 9 out of 10 times

That's one reason why they're good. They weed out the AVERAGE driver and reward the highly skilled (especially in clutch control ).

Make a full-blown rally version of the RB4 with 300hp, 400nm torque, a beautifully flat torque band, dual rate springs, improved suspension travel, 1200kg weight and 4 way adjustable dampers.

Quote from Blowtus :

rotary's vibrate pretty strongly at low rpm. Forget the reason - intake pulse not strong enough or some such? Dunno. When mine gets down below 1500rpm it lurches all over the joint.

What I was emphasizing was the fact that rotaries have very little to no detectable vibration at operating revs, like when you're racing or driving hard/fast. Anyway, good point, but V-8s vibrate all the time.

Quote from tristancliffe :

How accurate is GPS these days? +-40 feet? +- 20 feet? Either way, hardly good enough to make realistic roads! Wikipedia claims 6 feet, but I think that's rubbish, or maybe only applicable on the most expensive units. But still, 6 feet inaccuracies on a track would be mind bogglingly huge errors.

Actually, it's 1 meter (about 3 feet) ultimate precision for te most precise units I've heard of. However, for wide roads, 6 foot isn't TOO terrible if the course is a VERY long strectch of road. Imprecisions can be compensated for with reasonable approximations. Besides, we don't really need to replicate roads to absolute perfection. Inaccuracies can be ironed out over the development of the track in LFS.

Quote from Jamexing :

3
Just a little idea. Look-back is pretty useless in LFS since most cars have sizable pillars that block massive chunks of the rear view. Looking at the mirrors isn't so terribly practical either. What we can do without this radar idea is to use 2 look buttons that istead of looking exactly straight/left/right, looks to the left/right mirrors instead. This allows for realistic FOV settings while still allowing for proper rear view/side mirror use and visibility.

As I said before, we could just add a look button that runs in between full sideways and front which aims at the side mirrors. No need for some radar device, whilst allowing realistic looks of what's in the mirrors.

IRL driving, we do glance at our side mirrors once in a while to check what's behind us. This mirror glance button idea should allow for a realistic action that helps avoid wreckages.

I wonder what people would think of such an idea though. If anyone agrees please give a +1.

Quote from wheel4hummer :

Well, a carbon fiber hood would take some weight off the front. (A PAINTED carbon fiber hood of course). And, you could put the battery in the back.

I wonder if the OEM Mazda RX-7's hood weighed anywhere NEAR 200lbs. And the battery with it's associated connections added still don't quite add up to 200lbs (approximately 90kg). If you used carbon fiber for the entire front end (hood and fenders) along with a rear mounted battery system maybe you'll get closer to achieving the original weight. However, it's not a simple matter of weight by the numbers.

The fact is, your V-8 is significantly LONGER than the rotary, forcing it to be placed far more front than usual. This simply isn't just more mass at the front. It's the fact that the engine would actually act like as a lever and take weight OFF the rear. That is definitely no good handling wise. Coupled with the fact that all piston engines vibrate more than rotarys (given both are properly balanced), it simply doesn't help. All this neglacts the possibility that you actually cut the firewall and mount the engine practically within the cabin, something that neither terribly practical nor safe anyway.

Last edited by Jamexing, Tue 3 Oct 2006, 09:47.

Quote from Modoff :

1. Aryton Senna
2. Micheal Schumacher
3. Alain Prost
4. Jenson Button

Are u kidding? Jenson does not even come close to being on this list. He has won ONE gp. illepall

I was trying to say that Jenson Button has much better smoothness than Alonso. Just to clear this up.

The poor guy also has been through a heavy dose of bad luck, problems from underperforming cars to cars that blow up right before the finish line on the last lap. I wonder how well he would have done given a Ferrari/McLaren/Renault.

The rotary is pure simplistic genius. How to get rotary motion from rotary motion itself.

Quote from dave4002000 :

Evo falls on it's face at about 40mph

Hmmm, Evo falling flat on it's face at about 64kph? How? Just curious.

Last time I checked, Lancer Evolutions took hairpins at 40mph...

BTW, the FQ360 (OEM 360hp) version eats supercars (read Lamborghinis) for breakfast.

Digital steering, hmmm..... That's practically keyboard steering!

TBH, Alonso's no:

1. Aryton Senna
2. Micheal Schumacher
3. Alain Prost
4. Jenson Button

In short, he's nothing special. For the record, I happen to have seen some telemetry on MS's driving and it was some of the most extraordinary left foot braking and throttle control I've ever seen. Amazingly subtle left foot braking, how he never goes completely off throttle. Barichello's telemetry looks as if he dances around the brake and throttle like an ordinary right foot braker, never exploiting the full weight shift and tractive control benefits if left foot braking.

Jenson Button. Given a good and consistant car on a track he knows, he could easily lap it within 0.2 seconds of each other for 6 laps straight or more. He's one of the guys who don't need traction control quite as much as most of the current F-1 field. Problem is, he's got even worse luck then Alonso.

If Jenson Button was given a top level car like the Ferraris, Mclarens or Renaults, F-1 would have been much more interesting.

Then there's Aryton Senna. A true legend, one who controls cars like his own limbs. The angrier he gets, the FASTER he gets, unlike most drivers that simply mess up when they lose their cool.

Just my opinion on the subject of who's the better driver.

Hook up the GPS and start collecting data on some stretch of road, hmm...

Wish I could do that and create a virual template of great ocean road.

Quote from Blowtus :

I must have missed the bit where the discussion went from 'we don't have an rx7 equivalent' to stump pulling rally engies and twin turbo things...??

Well, let's get back to the point. Do we want a turbocharged rotary engined car in LFS or not? Maybe setup some sort of poll just to gauge public opinion.

Quote from Blowtus :

my 13bt fc pulls strongly from 2500rpm onwards... there's no hint of 'f1 nature'. feels like a similar powerband to other mild turbo cars around the 2L mark, but keeps pulling strongly right up to redline rather than dropping off.

True, there aren't as gutless as the current Renesis at mid-low rpms thanks to the turbo, but they're no rally engines (mid range stump pulling torque monsters like the 4G63). As you've said, it pulls smoothly and strongly to the redline, as rotaries should. Beautiful top end power. And I was refering to the sequential turbo FD with a noticable hole in its powerband somewhere in its rev range which I can't remember right now.

Anyway, good on you for owning and driving an FC.

Quote from mrodgers :

About the blindspots IRL. Last I've noticed, I have yet to see a car that is smaller than my 3 inch wide A/B/C-pillar. I don't rice my vehicles, so I don't have the spoiler/tail that was mentioned earlier. Like I said, IRL, my mirrors are set up so that the moment the other car leaves one, it enters the other or enters my peripheral view.

3 inch pillar? What car do you drive? And there's a little thing called perspective. Yes, no car is smaller than 3 inches, but over a distance, some cars do disappear or get obscured into your blind spot.

When cars are almost alongside you though, one's only option is to take quick looks to the side to gauge their proximity.

Just a little idea. Look-back is pretty useless in LFS since most cars have sizable pillars that block massive chunks of the rear view. Looking at the mirrors isn't so terribly practical either. What we can do without this radar idea is to use 2 look buttons that istead of looking exactly straight/left/right, looks to the left/right mirrors instead. This allows for realistic FOV settings while still allowing for proper rear view/side mirror use and visibility.

Last edited by Jamexing, Sun 1 Oct 2006, 07:32.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Except the logos on one side are mirrorred so they 'good' in shop windows as you crawl passed...

Well, kids will buy into ANY silly fad and commercial gimmick these days...