Calm down, I am just trying to get as much data as possible to get the optimal solution.
BTW, aero is EXTREMELY relevant even at formula SAE levels. For instance, the Monash University SAE team managed to drop lap times by as much as t1.5 seconds over laps only about 40 seconds long. CFD and wind tunnels are indespensible even at undergraduate, less than 137kph (85mph) racing these days. The wings used are pretty crazy with angles ass much as over 45 degrees, but thanks to CFD and wind tunnel tests stalling isn't an issue. One study I found came up with as much as 1/3 of the cars weight worth of downforce at 50mph. L/D ratios ranged from 3.8-2.2, depending on exact design.
Never underestimate the importance of aero. With an old 80s cars such as yours, it is possible there is much more to be extracted. If a bit of extra confidence is what you are really looking for, then just crank down the front wings since as you said you have no extra springs or adjustable dampers to play with. Start with a bit more understeer, and as you get more and more in tune, tune it back to original levels of front grip. Sounds bad, but that's actually a great way to learn without excessive risk. As you said, you aren't exactly the fastest guy, so I suggest more practice before anything is seriously changed. I started from a heavily understeering lump, which I then learned how to deal with the understeer, then as the the understeer was gradually tweaked out, it converged on mild to moderate oversteer. As skills improve and levle of subtle control increases, what feels like oversteer to the slower guy starts to feel like piggy understeer.
BTW, you're WAY luckier than I was. In my days it was rally driving on palm plantations with little in the way of grip. And funding was even MORE limited in my time so don't start whining at me when daddy is there to buy you some of your stuff. Tarmac stages were the only stages that favored minor understeer. Funding was even more limited for me and I had to search for cost effective means of extracting more speed. Ever had to fabricate a whole new wing you designed yourself, with a rear passenger holding a camera to record wool tuffs? Guess not. No racing harnesses, no runoffs, NOTHING, so consequences were often fatal.
BTW, aero is EXTREMELY relevant even at formula SAE levels. For instance, the Monash University SAE team managed to drop lap times by as much as t1.5 seconds over laps only about 40 seconds long. CFD and wind tunnels are indespensible even at undergraduate, less than 137kph (85mph) racing these days. The wings used are pretty crazy with angles ass much as over 45 degrees, but thanks to CFD and wind tunnel tests stalling isn't an issue. One study I found came up with as much as 1/3 of the cars weight worth of downforce at 50mph. L/D ratios ranged from 3.8-2.2, depending on exact design.
Never underestimate the importance of aero. With an old 80s cars such as yours, it is possible there is much more to be extracted. If a bit of extra confidence is what you are really looking for, then just crank down the front wings since as you said you have no extra springs or adjustable dampers to play with. Start with a bit more understeer, and as you get more and more in tune, tune it back to original levels of front grip. Sounds bad, but that's actually a great way to learn without excessive risk. As you said, you aren't exactly the fastest guy, so I suggest more practice before anything is seriously changed. I started from a heavily understeering lump, which I then learned how to deal with the understeer, then as the the understeer was gradually tweaked out, it converged on mild to moderate oversteer. As skills improve and levle of subtle control increases, what feels like oversteer to the slower guy starts to feel like piggy understeer.
BTW, you're WAY luckier than I was. In my days it was rally driving on palm plantations with little in the way of grip. And funding was even MORE limited in my time so don't start whining at me when daddy is there to buy you some of your stuff. Tarmac stages were the only stages that favored minor understeer. Funding was even more limited for me and I had to search for cost effective means of extracting more speed. Ever had to fabricate a whole new wing you designed yourself, with a rear passenger holding a camera to record wool tuffs? Guess not. No racing harnesses, no runoffs, NOTHING, so consequences were often fatal.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
Many suggestions have been thrown here, but I do have 1 question:
Is the oversteer issue mostly a transient state e.g. on turn in or on exit? If it is not a steady state issue then the logical place to start looking besides the aero and springs I mentioned are of course the dampers.
I wonder how adjustable your dampers are, but tweaking dampers or even replacing them with ones that provide superior damping curves will help too. A little less rear compression would allow the rear to squat down more quickly, allowing faster load shift to the rear. This assuming you don't have serious bottoming issues. This also allows increased rate of forward rake angle loss, shifting diffuser aero pressure aft.
As you said,you can easily provoke power oversteer out of low speed corner exits. Though fun, this isn't necessarily optimal if winning and breaking lap records are the order of the day. If you have maxed out the amount of rear grip you can get out of the car, then the only choice is to reduce front grip with e.g. stiffer front springs/dampers/ARBs. It's balance, reliability and consistently good pace that wins races in the end.
Is the oversteer issue mostly a transient state e.g. on turn in or on exit? If it is not a steady state issue then the logical place to start looking besides the aero and springs I mentioned are of course the dampers.
I wonder how adjustable your dampers are, but tweaking dampers or even replacing them with ones that provide superior damping curves will help too. A little less rear compression would allow the rear to squat down more quickly, allowing faster load shift to the rear. This assuming you don't have serious bottoming issues. This also allows increased rate of forward rake angle loss, shifting diffuser aero pressure aft.
As you said,you can easily provoke power oversteer out of low speed corner exits. Though fun, this isn't necessarily optimal if winning and breaking lap records are the order of the day. If you have maxed out the amount of rear grip you can get out of the car, then the only choice is to reduce front grip with e.g. stiffer front springs/dampers/ARBs. It's balance, reliability and consistently good pace that wins races in the end.
Tristan, if I've not misread anything you've said about your car's handling issues, it's a medium to high speed oversteer issue.
The fact is, rake is a VERY significant contributor to aero balance. Given all else equal and the front end untouched, a small increase in rear ride height of say 5mm would actually generate increases in L/D ratio and front percentage by as much as a few % of difference (very significant). This is based on both CFD and wind-tunnel studies I've seen so far. In fact, increased rake (nose down attitude) is standard procedure for increasing aero efficiency and understeer elimination, especially among front downforce limited cars such as GTs.
Fact of the matter is that with increased front rake the center of pressure actually shifts forward since the angle of both the diffuser and the bottom are increased whilst actually accelerating the front incoming air a bit more. This effectively leads to higher peak airflow velocities, but also allows the air to diffuse and thus decelerate earlier. Hence increased efficiency and front percentage.
In your case , the fact of the matter is that there are still some unknowns I'll like to quantify. Since you said that cranking the rear wings to the max didn't work, I'm also wondering if you have cranked it up TOO much. Having a wing at max angle is usually inefficient since L/D ratio will be compromised. There is also the matter of how airflow over your rear wing is REALLY behaving. Maybe you should get some wool tuffs and a stick on camera or even spread some wax and see how airflow affects them to see what the rear wing is actually doing? Could it be that the rear angle is overdone and the wing could be partially stalling?
I understand that ideally you want to lose none of the front grip you currently have. However, whatever you do to the rear will affect the front some way or the other since everything has knock-on effects in a car.
Some more questions include:
1. Do you have issues with rear grip on slow corners as well?
2. Is this problem significant only at higher speeds?
If answer to Q1 is YES, then start with rear suspension stiffnesses. Try lowering rear ARB stiffness. If that fails as you seem to have indicated then try removing it altogether assuming your rear springs aren't too soft (whereby camber change effects dominate over load sensitivity) in the first place. If this works without generating significant understeer whilst solving your oversteer issue, then great, since missing an ARB is less weight. Unless our weight regulations force a minimum weight but then again you now get to choose WHERE to place it...
If Q1 is no and Q2 is yes, then the logical thing to do is of course lower the rear a bit to shift aero balance to the rear. And yes, lowered rear COG on its own helps with rear tire load distribution, but that must also be balanced with your suspension behavior, which unfortunately remains a mystery without too much detailed technical data. If reasonable rake adjustments fails to achieve any significant improvement, then try tweaking the rear ARB a bit or even stiffening the fronts as long as lower speed balance and tire wear aren't significantly compromised. If that fails THEN tweak the front wings down.
But since you said the tire metrics are good, then maybe you are just unused the handling of the vehicle. try adapting to the oversteer you said about and see if it works. If the oversteer is genuinely at non-optimally large levels then start considering tweaks to wing angle.
The fact is, rake is a VERY significant contributor to aero balance. Given all else equal and the front end untouched, a small increase in rear ride height of say 5mm would actually generate increases in L/D ratio and front percentage by as much as a few % of difference (very significant). This is based on both CFD and wind-tunnel studies I've seen so far. In fact, increased rake (nose down attitude) is standard procedure for increasing aero efficiency and understeer elimination, especially among front downforce limited cars such as GTs.
Fact of the matter is that with increased front rake the center of pressure actually shifts forward since the angle of both the diffuser and the bottom are increased whilst actually accelerating the front incoming air a bit more. This effectively leads to higher peak airflow velocities, but also allows the air to diffuse and thus decelerate earlier. Hence increased efficiency and front percentage.
In your case , the fact of the matter is that there are still some unknowns I'll like to quantify. Since you said that cranking the rear wings to the max didn't work, I'm also wondering if you have cranked it up TOO much. Having a wing at max angle is usually inefficient since L/D ratio will be compromised. There is also the matter of how airflow over your rear wing is REALLY behaving. Maybe you should get some wool tuffs and a stick on camera or even spread some wax and see how airflow affects them to see what the rear wing is actually doing? Could it be that the rear angle is overdone and the wing could be partially stalling?
I understand that ideally you want to lose none of the front grip you currently have. However, whatever you do to the rear will affect the front some way or the other since everything has knock-on effects in a car.
Some more questions include:
1. Do you have issues with rear grip on slow corners as well?
2. Is this problem significant only at higher speeds?
If answer to Q1 is YES, then start with rear suspension stiffnesses. Try lowering rear ARB stiffness. If that fails as you seem to have indicated then try removing it altogether assuming your rear springs aren't too soft (whereby camber change effects dominate over load sensitivity) in the first place. If this works without generating significant understeer whilst solving your oversteer issue, then great, since missing an ARB is less weight. Unless our weight regulations force a minimum weight but then again you now get to choose WHERE to place it...
If Q1 is no and Q2 is yes, then the logical thing to do is of course lower the rear a bit to shift aero balance to the rear. And yes, lowered rear COG on its own helps with rear tire load distribution, but that must also be balanced with your suspension behavior, which unfortunately remains a mystery without too much detailed technical data. If reasonable rake adjustments fails to achieve any significant improvement, then try tweaking the rear ARB a bit or even stiffening the fronts as long as lower speed balance and tire wear aren't significantly compromised. If that fails THEN tweak the front wings down.
But since you said the tire metrics are good, then maybe you are just unused the handling of the vehicle. try adapting to the oversteer you said about and see if it works. If the oversteer is genuinely at non-optimally large levels then start considering tweaks to wing angle.
Actually, optimal tire slip angles vary immensely. Low profile slicks could have say optimal angles o 5-7 degrees whilst tall formula tires the angle can be as much as 13 degrees based on tire test I've seen so far.
As for the topic at hand, when physics modeling gets vastly improved (e.g. the age old turbo issues fixed), some cars would actually end up faster. The downforce cars, on the other hand, that is a much more complex issue if realistic aero behavior starts to get modeled.
The top 2 Formula cars, with their high downforce, simply slide too much ATM. The most obvious case is actually the BF-1, with its amazingly good L/D ratios and balance. IRL, excessive yaw will ruin aero and cause losses in downforce AND L/D ratio. For instance, a CFD study I saw about an Indycar saw a 7% drop in L/D and 5% drop in negative lift with only 3 degrees of yaw away from the path of airflow. Of course, RL is more complex then this, but the same trends for parameters such as negative lift and drag remain.
Th point is, too much yaw is really bad for downforce cars, so significant sliding is a definite no-no.
As for the topic at hand, when physics modeling gets vastly improved (e.g. the age old turbo issues fixed), some cars would actually end up faster. The downforce cars, on the other hand, that is a much more complex issue if realistic aero behavior starts to get modeled.
The top 2 Formula cars, with their high downforce, simply slide too much ATM. The most obvious case is actually the BF-1, with its amazingly good L/D ratios and balance. IRL, excessive yaw will ruin aero and cause losses in downforce AND L/D ratio. For instance, a CFD study I saw about an Indycar saw a 7% drop in L/D and 5% drop in negative lift with only 3 degrees of yaw away from the path of airflow. Of course, RL is more complex then this, but the same trends for parameters such as negative lift and drag remain.
Th point is, too much yaw is really bad for downforce cars, so significant sliding is a definite no-no.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
I'm saying diesels PREFER fast burning FUEL for maximum power. As I said, diesels perform best using fuel that burns FAST. (Last sentence of my previous post).
For comparison, a 1990's 4D56 2.5L diesel has a minimum cetane requirement of 45. Most petroleum diesel isn't much better than that. However, 60 cetane high grade diesel is now available in some European countries.
If someone comes up with economically available 100 cetane fuel...
Last edited by Jamexing, .
2 major reasons limit ultimate absolute absolute high rev capability:
1. Fuel atomization and spray pattern
2. Fuel burn rate.
1st problem is solved via the engine part of the equation. High pressure, well atomized fuel is both easier to ignite and burns faster, highly beneficial for energy efficiency, power and lack of particulates. This is done mainly via high pressure, very atomized fuel spray. Technologies that allow smarter fuel spray timing and swirl pattern strategies will improve things in this respect.
The 2nd equation is actually easy to solve if biodiesel production and use becomes widespread and even more efficient. Countries such as Malaysia have HUGE supplies of excess palm oil, all of which when converted to biodiesel results in superior cetane to conventional petroleum diesel.
Diesel and petrol ICEs are exact opposites when it comes to desired fuel burn characteristics. Petrol engines prefer hard to ignite fuels that burn slowly coupled with aggressive ignition advance for maximum power and efficiency. Diesel engines run best on fuel that burns fast. 60 cetane biodiesel + 5500rpm redline + 3500rpm powerband(2000 to 5500) = BLISS.
1. Fuel atomization and spray pattern
2. Fuel burn rate.
1st problem is solved via the engine part of the equation. High pressure, well atomized fuel is both easier to ignite and burns faster, highly beneficial for energy efficiency, power and lack of particulates. This is done mainly via high pressure, very atomized fuel spray. Technologies that allow smarter fuel spray timing and swirl pattern strategies will improve things in this respect.
The 2nd equation is actually easy to solve if biodiesel production and use becomes widespread and even more efficient. Countries such as Malaysia have HUGE supplies of excess palm oil, all of which when converted to biodiesel results in superior cetane to conventional petroleum diesel.
Diesel and petrol ICEs are exact opposites when it comes to desired fuel burn characteristics. Petrol engines prefer hard to ignite fuels that burn slowly coupled with aggressive ignition advance for maximum power and efficiency. Diesel engines run best on fuel that burns fast. 60 cetane biodiesel + 5500rpm redline + 3500rpm powerband(2000 to 5500) = BLISS.
The devs have been amazingly quite for quite a while. Hmmm....
Anime captures genuine essence and emotions of each moment of a given storyline much better than most western animation I have seen to date. Many have remarkable levels of realism. For instance, Ghost in the Shell the movie had its soundtrack finalized after hours of real world study. For instance, the sounds of bullets hitting metallic and concrete surfaces are different and it actually sounds really close to what things REALLY sound like IRL. And they tend to have superior and usually more realistic depictions of the realities of life, showing violence, drug use, psychology, sexual matters, etc, in a much more explicit and frank manner. The good and the bad together like IRL, warts and all. And anyone could win and more often or not there is no black and white separation of good guys and bad guys, since no one is perfect.
Well, at least that's how it is with the ones I've watched so far.
My current favorites are MACROSS (original, Plus and Zero) and Ghost in the Shell. Ghost in the shell is particularly suited for deep thinkers of social, political, economic, ethical and spirituals issues i.e. serious philosophical manners. Macross for the amazing mechanical concepts and its depiction both the triumphs and tragedies of war. And it is no surprise that if war is all one has ever been taught, trained and exposed to, that's all one will ever know. The culture of a people is extremely important both themselves and those around them. A culture of war and hatred will only lead to a culture of pointless death and destruction. The only solution to this is to replace it with a culture of love and most of all hope.
BTW, the Variable fighters would absolutely revolutionize warfare and most importantly defense if they were possibility to build and use successfully. Such great versatility, air superiority fighter, precision bomber, interceptor, mobile active missile defense platform, infantry support and direct ground assault, etc, all in one extremely sophisticated and versatile albeit complicated vehicle. Yes, such a thing would not be easy to create even if currently possible, but this is in essence no different to nuclear fusion, which is also very difficult but certainly within the realms of physical possibility to do well. Anything worth creating has its price.
There are others I enjoy as well but can't think of ATM.
Well, at least that's how it is with the ones I've watched so far.
My current favorites are MACROSS (original, Plus and Zero) and Ghost in the Shell. Ghost in the shell is particularly suited for deep thinkers of social, political, economic, ethical and spirituals issues i.e. serious philosophical manners. Macross for the amazing mechanical concepts and its depiction both the triumphs and tragedies of war. And it is no surprise that if war is all one has ever been taught, trained and exposed to, that's all one will ever know. The culture of a people is extremely important both themselves and those around them. A culture of war and hatred will only lead to a culture of pointless death and destruction. The only solution to this is to replace it with a culture of love and most of all hope.
BTW, the Variable fighters would absolutely revolutionize warfare and most importantly defense if they were possibility to build and use successfully. Such great versatility, air superiority fighter, precision bomber, interceptor, mobile active missile defense platform, infantry support and direct ground assault, etc, all in one extremely sophisticated and versatile albeit complicated vehicle. Yes, such a thing would not be easy to create even if currently possible, but this is in essence no different to nuclear fusion, which is also very difficult but certainly within the realms of physical possibility to do well. Anything worth creating has its price.
There are others I enjoy as well but can't think of ATM.
The fact of the matter is that we tend to sound quite in real life then from any recorded voice. There are a myriad of reasons for this. For instance, if sound is digitally recorded it depends on the sampling frequency. And how the sound actually comes out through a speaker is dependent on the fidelity of the system i.e. flatness of the frequency response in its passband and specifically at around 1-3.5kHz region where the harmonics of typical human voices reside. Then of course there is also the matter of some human operator messing with the equalizer...
The fact of the matter is that is male and female voices were analytically compared via frequency spectrum analysis i.e. FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) they aren't THAT different. It is just that human auditory systems are designed to be particularly sensitive in that frequency spectrum and any discrepancies would be more easily noticed.
The fact of the matter is that is male and female voices were analytically compared via frequency spectrum analysis i.e. FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) they aren't THAT different. It is just that human auditory systems are designed to be particularly sensitive in that frequency spectrum and any discrepancies would be more easily noticed.
I bet Scawen is busily coding and testing for the next major patch, implementing and perfecting some serious physics upgrades. Who knows? He did promise improved physics back in the patch X series test patches and judging by LFS's history it is quite possible that he is delivering on his promise as we speak. 
Longer names would actually help a lot with organization. For instance, try typing "FZR Qualifying setup 1.00" in the current setup names...
\
Finally, some common sense that happens to make good scientific sense too.
Last edited by XCNuse, .
Reason : wasn't entirely necessary to quote that whole thing
FYI I mentioned Iceland which by sheer fortune happens to have lots of energy form the earth's core energy in the form of heat popping out of it. And I don't see how using the heat that's already coming out of the core is going to cause massive environmental trouble on its own. Of course, Iceland is a special case with a rather small population and of course they are lucky for having this option.
The superconductor power cell is just something I mentioned as a possible method to store a lot of excess power. It's not exactly a pipe dream in the physics sense and the biggest obstacle now is to find higher temperature superconductors, which will happen and is just a matter of time. Superconductors have been incrementally dropping their operating temperatures over the years and of course if people these days were more enthusiastic about science and engineering then worshiping superstars, easy money, etc, then there's more hope.
And let's be absolutely blunt about Chernobyl. The whole tragedy was actually a combination of incompetence both technically and from a managerial point of view. The combination of an unstable design that required power to remain sufficiently on to circulate coolant, the use of trainee technicians instead of veteran engineers and technicians to do a potentially dangerous safety test (ironic, isn't it?), etc. What many people DON'T know is the fact that similar tests that ended up in tragedy in Chernobyl were also carried out in the USA. The only difference was that the Americans passed their auto shutdown tests with flying colors. And of course, few seemed to have noticed significant improvements in efficiency, waste management, etc.
Then again, such good news isn't exactly sensational. Nothing sells like bad news on a Chernobyl scale...
Then there is nuclear FUSION. It's the very process that powers the sun. Quite a few experiments done on it and some have even managed to keep nuclear fusion under control for as long as 15 minutes. Still a long way to go of course and the current social-political climate isn't exactly helpful (with some wishing fossil fuels remain the dominant fuel source forever whereas those crazy greenies on the political scene try to shove oxymoronically and even plain stupid ideas like hybrid cars and wind power down our throats). And of course relative lack of interest in sciences by the current youth will only put another nail in the coffin.
Of course, fusion power and superconductor power cells are still quite a while away if they do eventually come to be, no doubt about that. But in the long run (not just decades but HUNDREDS or even THOUSANDS of years), they are necessary if humanity as a species is to both live long AND prosper (not meant to be a Vulcan (Star Trek alien race
) pun). BTW, last time I checked, the manufacture of Toyota Prius batteries caused massive environmental havoc that make petrol and diesel fumes look positively green. Thanks to the massive amounts of nickel processing required for those batteries, the ecosystems around those plants have been absolutely annihilated thanks to excessive levels of Sulphuric Acid from rain, etc. I am also very well aware that disposal is an important but often undermentioned part of ecological sustainability. As for batteries, the unfortunate fact remains there has been too LITTLE progress in battery technology. 10 bloody years and the best they could come up with is just Lithium Polymer. Not too impressive compared to the significant improvements from petrol (FSI/GDI, high pressure injection, variable valve lift and timing, etc) and especially diesel engines (DID, Common Rail high pressure injection, improved durability to mass ratio, Variable vane geometry turbo (recently introduced to top end gasoline cars like the 997 turbo) etc). Doesn't mean that electrical power storage should be further neglected and in fact this only means there is much work that must be done.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
OR if you live on Iceland you could simply pump that geothermally produced electric power straight to the batteries of your 130mph, 0-100km/h in under 5 seconds, 200+ mile range Tesla.
I really hope physics and other fundamental sciences get more attention these days and if nuclear fusion power is now up and running safely in commercial use, superconducting power storage becomes commonplace, etc, electric cars would be so superior overall that ICEs will look "dinomobiles". Don't see that happening any soon, unfortunately, for resons so blatantly obvious I will not bother to mention..
The real chief point of all this isn't the fact that a bunch of Knuckleheads blew up an engine though may not be of much monetary value but could have been someones pride and joy for many years if repaired or even upgraded properly.
The point is that this is a simple matter of human nature. Humanity's insatiable lust for destruction. Any excuse to destroy something. Anything. And some still wonder why morality and common sense are decaying at an exponential rate. The same thing actually applies to issues as serious as marriages. Ah, whatever excuse I can cough up to get rid of that bitch that you thought you loved years ago and married after only 72 hours of contact. Whatever I can cough up to get half my millionaire hubby's fortune. Who cares about the need for a happy and complete family by those little brats... (aka children). It's all about humanity's endless love affair with death and destruction.
Note: This is about homo saipiens as a species IN GENERAL, not aimed at particular individuals.
All that wasted fuel and no valuable data of scientific, engineering or practical value has come out of it. Even from a coldly logical point of view it was a pure waste.
For instance, a 40 inch LCD TV in Japan might be considered obsolete and replaced after 6 months of use. The stupid way would be to simply destroy it for nothing. Or if it still functions perfectly fine and most likely will for at least a good number of years you could simply sell it to someone else either local or foreign for a fraction of the original price. Of course you can NEVER recuperate all your losses, but it's better then just throwing a perfectly usable physical item of practical value away at a complete loss. If anything you could be doing less well to do families a great service. All while reducing the cost of your new TV from the money earned via trading in the old set.
The Japanese do in fact export a lot of their used cars that were either only a few years old and in excellent condition or restored to near OEM spec to a lot of countries in South East Asia. If you know where and who to look for, getting quality bargains for cars that range from post 2000 Mitsubishi Pajeros to Lexus IS300s isn't terribly difficult. The fact that people get to drive quality used vehicles at only a fraction of the price of brand new cars is itself a win-win situation where everyone ends up happy in the end (generally).
In this engine's case, why not just keep the car and all and just look for and sell it to someone who would restore it just because of their passion and love for the type of car? What a waste.
The point is that this is a simple matter of human nature. Humanity's insatiable lust for destruction. Any excuse to destroy something. Anything. And some still wonder why morality and common sense are decaying at an exponential rate. The same thing actually applies to issues as serious as marriages. Ah, whatever excuse I can cough up to get rid of that bitch that you thought you loved years ago and married after only 72 hours of contact. Whatever I can cough up to get half my millionaire hubby's fortune. Who cares about the need for a happy and complete family by those little brats... (aka children). It's all about humanity's endless love affair with death and destruction.
Note: This is about homo saipiens as a species IN GENERAL, not aimed at particular individuals.
All that wasted fuel and no valuable data of scientific, engineering or practical value has come out of it. Even from a coldly logical point of view it was a pure waste.
For instance, a 40 inch LCD TV in Japan might be considered obsolete and replaced after 6 months of use. The stupid way would be to simply destroy it for nothing. Or if it still functions perfectly fine and most likely will for at least a good number of years you could simply sell it to someone else either local or foreign for a fraction of the original price. Of course you can NEVER recuperate all your losses, but it's better then just throwing a perfectly usable physical item of practical value away at a complete loss. If anything you could be doing less well to do families a great service. All while reducing the cost of your new TV from the money earned via trading in the old set.
The Japanese do in fact export a lot of their used cars that were either only a few years old and in excellent condition or restored to near OEM spec to a lot of countries in South East Asia. If you know where and who to look for, getting quality bargains for cars that range from post 2000 Mitsubishi Pajeros to Lexus IS300s isn't terribly difficult. The fact that people get to drive quality used vehicles at only a fraction of the price of brand new cars is itself a win-win situation where everyone ends up happy in the end (generally).
In this engine's case, why not just keep the car and all and just look for and sell it to someone who would restore it just because of their passion and love for the type of car? What a waste.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
One question: Why must the energy recovery device be made as massive unsprung mass? There is no reason why that must be. The car will be trying to slow down and any device that captures this braking energy would actually reduce the burden on the brakes if its use is maximized, leading to less need for larger and thus heavier brakes. Assuming that electrical energy is used as the energy form to store and shunt around, why not simply build the heavier motor/generator body as the sprung weight and the relatively light
And when was the last time a modern F-1 car was seriously hampered by inertia of its drivetrain? If anything these things are still struggling with power-down at lower downforce speeds even with "only" 750hp, much less than the 900+hp of the V-10 era. If anyone has ever noticed the vast majority of engineering development with F-1 cars is through aerodynamics, to the point where other areas of development are usually compromised for all important aero. For instance, Ferrari made the compromise of reducing rear brake cooling to improve rear aero, and it paid off. Practically everyone runs zero-keel these days since the tradeoffs in suspension geometry are insignificant compared to the aero gains.
And 2nd, if you are really serious about energy recovery, to waste so much brake energy from the front wheels is going to be very counter productive. F-1 cars still achieve most of their overall deceleration via the front brakes despite of super high downforce and 3m long wheelbases coupled with LOW COG. 5gs of deceleration will see to that.
Last edited by Jamexing, .
Energy recovery from the front axles is actually mandatory if the system is to work as well as it should and prove its worth. Even uber-high downforce F-1 cars do most of their braking work with the front brakes.
Actually, 50% efficiency is quite attainable if more direct energy conversion methods are used where instead of turning brake energy to electrical energy to be transfered and stored in batteries, one could transfer all that brake energy straight to mechanical energy in the form of ultra-high revving contra-rotating flywheels. But whether this system will be well developed enough in time to be implemented in F-1 cars 2-3 years down the road is very much an open question.
+infinity for an AI antimatter missile to blast this silly idea to kingdom come.
I remember I've explained how energy recovery has real potential to work REALLY well even if the efficiency of the system from brake energy to propulsive energy was as low as 50% in some other F-1 related thread. Of course, it was under the assumption that all four wheels were used. And I also explained that if this energy could used to power the relatively underused front wheels (tractively speaking of course) corner exits would be much more efficient both in terms of speed and energy usage. And if implemented properly with drivers trained to fully exploit it, it'll mean that traction control would be unnecessary and possibly obsolete. With stickier slick tires and less downforce and thus drag, cornering and straight line speeds would remain extremely high whilst getting away with smaller and less powerful engines.
Ah well, one can only hope that the FIA doesn't make a joke out of this again.
Ah well, one can only hope that the FIA doesn't make a joke out of this again.
My advice is, if you really want grip, handling and safety, DON'T use lower and stiffer springs with OEM dampers. A potentially deadly combination that if you happen to be to excite it enough, would cause very uncontrolled oscillations with great potential to get you out of control. This assumes the average case whereby the OEM dampers are significantly worn.
In practice, with BMWs, that depends on the condition of your OEM dampers. If they are still nice and taut, they can cope pretty well with normal driving since European cars tend to be tuned with good rebound damping (in general). Don't bother trying to test its absolute limits though. Controllability issues crop up in severe transient conditions such as slalom courses, autocross, or even on road collision evasion. In short you end up paying more money to get LESS overall performance. If you are lucky (or unlucky depending on your point of view) enough to hit regular sequences of bumps at the "correct" speed to excite the system at its natural frequency, the significantly underdamped system could oscillate out of control and the car bounce uncontrollably. All this depends on the actual rate of the lowered springs too though.
As e2mustang said, the Bilstein PSS9 system is ideal for you if you want a lowered car with significantly improved cornering performance. Another path involves the use of Eibach progressive lowering springs and Koni Sport dampers which have very adjustable rebound (stiffest can be up to twice as stiff as softest setting). Or you can check www.koni.com and look for an FSD suspension package.
F - Frequency
S - Selective
D - Damping
Basically a damper that softens itself if the frequency of motion is high enough to reach or exceed a preset threshold. This allows excellent handling since cornering involves relatively lower frequency motions whilst allowing excellent bump compliance, improving both comfort and grip on less than flat surfaces.
In practice, with BMWs, that depends on the condition of your OEM dampers. If they are still nice and taut, they can cope pretty well with normal driving since European cars tend to be tuned with good rebound damping (in general). Don't bother trying to test its absolute limits though. Controllability issues crop up in severe transient conditions such as slalom courses, autocross, or even on road collision evasion. In short you end up paying more money to get LESS overall performance. If you are lucky (or unlucky depending on your point of view) enough to hit regular sequences of bumps at the "correct" speed to excite the system at its natural frequency, the significantly underdamped system could oscillate out of control and the car bounce uncontrollably. All this depends on the actual rate of the lowered springs too though.
As e2mustang said, the Bilstein PSS9 system is ideal for you if you want a lowered car with significantly improved cornering performance. Another path involves the use of Eibach progressive lowering springs and Koni Sport dampers which have very adjustable rebound (stiffest can be up to twice as stiff as softest setting). Or you can check www.koni.com and look for an FSD suspension package.
F - Frequency
S - Selective
D - Damping
Basically a damper that softens itself if the frequency of motion is high enough to reach or exceed a preset threshold. This allows excellent handling since cornering involves relatively lower frequency motions whilst allowing excellent bump compliance, improving both comfort and grip on less than flat surfaces.
This fiasco has only done more to confirm one of my essential rules of life:
ALWAYS assume that human stupidity knows no bounds.
Or as Einstein said:
"There are 2 things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
ALWAYS assume that human stupidity knows no bounds.
Or as Einstein said:
"There are 2 things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Well, line expansion actually messes the position vs. pressure correlation relationship quite a lot, since the actual pedal position vs. pressure correlation becomes progressive, i.e. very soft initially but the last small portion of travel requires huge effort (pressure). SS lines improve feel by removing this progressive behavior so the pressure exerted is more closely linked to position initially, since the pistons are held off the disc via linear springs anyway. When the pistons start to clamp on the disc with significant force, it is still more linear since the disc material is still roughly linear elastic material anyway. So in effect it's like a soft spring followed by a much stiffer spring. This neglects a lot of stuff such as viscous damping forces from the brake fluid, etc, but it's the general picture.
And yes, LFB works best for those who have a deep understanding of the effects of load shifting/brake bias/etc on vehicle behavior. Mastering it is simply a matter of having this understanding on an intuitive and instinctive level.
Personally I'm happier with pressure sensitive brakes like RL cars then position sensitive ones too, which is why I have a much easier time with pushing real cars to their limits consistently and safely. Though honestly, if brakeline flex is severely reduced with stainless steel brakelines, then pressure will be more linearly correlated with pedal position anyway.
But what many seem to face here is the fact that they are more used to driving with an artificial steering, gearshift and pedal mechanism in computer programs then RL cars. This is where one discovers that computer sims and RL are a mile away. For instance, there is no reset button...
BTW, F-1 is more a joke than anything else these days. Customer cars? (Super Aguri and Honda cars are basically carbon copies) F-1 is supposed to be a lab for cutting edge tech and racing, not some rich man's indulgence in an obscenely expensive hobby with no intention to perform.
That being the operative word. Given both had setups that fit them and both picked the opimum line for a given situation, the left foot braking master usually dominates.
As some have already mentioned here, real brakes are pressure sensitive and this only reinforces what I said about the level finesse required to LFB PROPERLY.
Just look at Rubens right NOW. Languishing with a 2nd rate team and lost in the middle of nowhere on the drivers championship scoreboard. Even if he is still in Ferrari I doubt he would have outdone Massa and Kimi.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG