I'm not aware of any open cockpit racer or motorcycle racer that doesn't use earplugs of some type. I always use foam earplugs and a helmet when driving my motorcycle. The earplugs cut out almost all of the wind noise, and you can hear the engine (and other vehicles). When I had the Caterham, the wind noise was also very loud, and earplugs once again greatly reduced wind noise to the point that if driver and passenger wore earplugs, you could hear a normal conversation. The foam earplugs mostly eliminate high frequency noises.
The in car sounds should reflect what a driver hears, including the effects of earplugs, or earplugs should be a sound option.
The in car sounds should reflect what a driver hears, including the effects of earplugs, or earplugs should be a sound option.
Instead of cutting the throttle, modern ECU / fuel injection systems just cut off fuel to a few of the engine's cylinders. Traction control does the same thing (as opposed to stability control which uses individual wheel braking to reduce yaw, and maximize torque at each tire).
Possibly, but no way is a manual shift going to be faster than a computer controlled no lift sequential shifter. As previously posted with the video reference, shift times with a XTRAC like box are 50ms (1/20th of a second) in the lower gears down to 30ms (1/33rd of a second) in the higher gears (less rpm drop). No human can match this, and it's worth a second or so depending on the car and track.
Currently LFS doesn't model no lift sequential shifters, even in the F1 car.
Most cars have rev-limiters, so flat shifting shouldn't hurt the engine, but it would probably damage the transmission on many cars. Downshifting at too high a speed will hurt the engine unless a slipper clutch that limits engine braking is used (racing motorcycles and some cars use this).
All out racing cars with no lift sequential shifters, will shift much faster than they do in LFS. Shift times are around 50ms (1/20th of a second) or faster. As usually, I refer to this video of a BMW 320 STW (super touring class), with an XTRAC type shifter (just a big switch near the steering whee). Turn down the sound, rear end is really loud and whiny.
Assen-bmwSTW.wmv
All out racing cars with no lift sequential shifters, will shift much faster than they do in LFS. Shift times are around 50ms (1/20th of a second) or faster. As usually, I refer to this video of a BMW 320 STW (super touring class), with an XTRAC type shifter (just a big switch near the steering whee). Turn down the sound, rear end is really loud and whiny.
Assen-bmwSTW.wmv
Corvette ad that didn't last long
Honda did make engines for the former CART series but defected to the IRL series after the split.
Wiki link below.
Regarding the power there are still references to 850hp. There's a reference to making about the same power as 2006 F1's at 750hp, but I think the intent was same power to weight ratio, 750hp @ 1300lbs, versus 850hp at 1500+lbs. Later in this same link you see a reference to 850hp.
I've seen other references to Champ cars (beside the wiki one) that also mention 850hp. Maybe this is the power with push to pass enabled.
The 1990's were the speed days of CART, engines approaching 1000hp, and top speeds near 265mph on high speed ovals (257mph during a race as previously posted).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champ_Car
I have an old video, where you can see the different front and rear wings used. Right after you see several cars take off out of the pits during a race, the view shows the smaller front and rear wings used on high speed ovals.
cart.wmv
Last edited by JeffR, .
Why worry about mixed class races, with cars that simulate real world cars? If you want mixed class races, then it should be modeled after real world mixed class races, where the power to weight ratio determines the class, and the cars are heavily modified for racing, not street cars with minor mods.
Last I read it was about 850hp, but this may change from season to season, as it's mostly about much boost is allowed (via the spec waste gate which also controls the push to pass). Rpms are limited by spec to 8500rpm. I think Honda also makes engines for Champ cars.
What is strange about champ cars is that no team "owns" the engines. They just "lease" an engine and support crew from Cosworth or Honda for a season (for over $1 million US). Since the engines are essentially the same, it's the setup and drivers that determine who wins.
Regarding Champ cars at ovals, they don't run high speed ovals anymore, just the low to medium speed ovals, and just 2 of these. As I previously mentioned, this would reduce the cost of racing because they ran with different nose and wings for the high speed ovals.
As far as Champ cars go in general, the current ones are like detuned F1 cars, a bit slower, no aids, but they do have the push to pass feature. Indy Racing cars have less power, but they are more aerodynamic, and run at higher speeds, so they would make good oval cars.
Regarding NR2003, most of the public online play is on the open oval servers, but I have the feeling that most NR2003 players prefer the mods and running on all of the road courses available for NR2003. My favorite mods are the TransAm mod and the GTP mod. It's still my opinion and many expert sim racers that NR2003's physics (including the mods) are the best. Papy games also have an excellent replay feature. There are still players willing to spend $80 (USA) and more to get a copy of the no longer published game at ebay. F1C99-02 is starting to follow suit with high prices online. I'm just glad I got these games back when they were cheap. I hope that a company like sold-out software will get the rights to start making new copies of these games to bring the prices back down. Sold-out sells GPL for between $5 and $10 USA.
Last edited by JeffR, .
The challenge is to go one tenth of a second faster than the next fastest driver, and this is difficult.
Regarding champ cars, they don't run high speed ovals any more, almost all road and street courses these days (maybe 2 medium speed ovals). I don't think they have two types of noses or wings anymore (one used for high speed ovals, the other for road courses). Indy Racing League and Nascar are the only cars running high speed ovals any more.
Regarding Indy cars, they only race ovals, and except for Indinaoplis 500, there's virtually no televised coverage on a network station of Indy car events anymore, only on cable stations. Part of this is due to the increase in popularity of cable and satellite usage though.
Back in the days when there was just CART, the cars were going very fast. At California Speedway, the top 3 qualifiers had average lap speeds over 240mph (386kmh), and were reaching 265mph (426kmh) at the end of the straights. Paul Tracy recorded a trap speed of 257mph (414kmh) during a race at the Michigan 500. At these speeds, ovals are challenging.
Since the split between IRL and Champ cars, open wheel racing in the USA has lost a lot of the viewing audience, while Nascar has picked up quite a bit.
I don't think there's much you can do to significantly increase USA interest beyond what's already been done, which is include faster cars (assuming LFS doesn't plan on adding scantily clad umbrella girls to the game).
Personally, I've lost interest in online racing, as there are so many good games (racing and otherwise), that I don't have the time to spend mothns with just one game. I started online racing back in 1999 with NFS4 - High Stakes. I continued with the NFS series, during this time, I got Grand Prix Legends, and spent 7 out of 9 months mostly with GPL to get my GPL Rank negative. I went online a few times with GPL, but unless you join a league, the racing isn't very close, as the skill levels are very wide with GPL. I got F1C99-02 and NR2003. I tried NR2003 online for a couple of months, but at 30+ minutes per race, it was just taking too much time so I quit. I also ran LFS S1 online, but not S2. I played NFS8 - Underground 2 long enough to get "elite" in all modes, but when NFS9 - Most Wanted was released, I had quit racing online completely.
I like racing games, but my favorite games have been the Tombraider series, mostly because the main character has so many moves, and the exploring part of the game with large landscapes is interesting to me, so I'm not a true racing simulation fan.
I wonder what the future of PC based gaming, racing and non-racing will be, with all the competition from consoles. By the time S3 is released, what will the competition in other racing games be like?
Last edited by JeffR, .
For BF1 racing to be fun, you just need longer / wider tracks which provides more of an oppurtunity to pass. For hot lapping, I find the F1 cars in various games to be the most fun, as it provides a good challenge for your sense of timing.
But it has a very long straight which allows for passing.
Why doesn't someone create a wrecker pit, there's one for NR2003, and it's fun for those who like that sort of thing.
Is there any place where you can actually download the onboard video? I've found a few sites with the top gear footage, most of which is a track side view.
A link to the top lap times for Top Gear's test track:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/powerlaps.shtml
The F1 was 59 seconds, the jet flew over the track, did not drive on it.
Newest addition is the Corvette Z06 (from last Sunday), which did a 1:22.4, a very fast time. Although Jeremy claimed the Z06 wasn't good for the street, I find it just fine. I also think this is the first time Jeremy ever used the USA pronunciation of "aluminum".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/powerlaps.shtml
The F1 was 59 seconds, the jet flew over the track, did not drive on it.
Newest addition is the Corvette Z06 (from last Sunday), which did a 1:22.4, a very fast time. Although Jeremy claimed the Z06 wasn't good for the street, I find it just fine. I also think this is the first time Jeremy ever used the USA pronunciation of "aluminum".
Does drafting speed up the lead car?
In real life (at least with Nascar type cars), when a pair of cars are close, both benefit from a reduction in drag. The lead car gets a push becase the trailing car fills in some of the "void" that normally air has to fill, reducing the lead cars drag'. The trailing car is driving into an already moving low pressure air stream, reducing it's drag even more.
The net result on a high speed track, like an oval, is 2 cars are faster than 1, 3 cars are faster than 2, and 4 cars maybe a tad faster than 3, but that's about it.
Also, 2 cars side by side are slower than 1 car, if the two cars are close enough that air flow between them is significantly restricted.
The net result on a high speed track, like an oval, is 2 cars are faster than 1, 3 cars are faster than 2, and 4 cars maybe a tad faster than 3, but that's about it.
Also, 2 cars side by side are slower than 1 car, if the two cars are close enough that air flow between them is significantly restricted.
As far as comparing LFS to other racing sims, I rarely play online, but I do follow what games one of the top sim racing teams play, most members play more than one racing sim, mostly because this is where I went to get setups and replays for GPL and NR2003.
http://www.teamredline.co.uk
LFS - one member, Aki Räsänen, AKA "Lefty".
GPL - two members
NR2003 and basic mods - three members
GTP (mod for NR2003) - two members
F1C - two members
Toca race driver 2 - one member
NFS series - zero members (although I like these games).
From what I've read, the "experts" consider NR2003's physics to be the most accurate, not just ovals, but all the road courses available for download and the various mods, like the Trans-Am and GTP mods. Actual Nascar racers rate NR2003 as pretty good, espeically the trucks.
GPL seems to be next on the list, in spite of it's age.
After this, I don't think there's any general agreement among the race sim fans / experts.
Obviously there's LFS, and rFactor, as mentioned in this thread. Plus GTR, GTLegends, F1C and it's mods. GTR / GTLegends includes some real race drivers on it's staff, but I don't know how well this has helped the games. Then again, EA hired a Toyota Atlantic series race driver to assist with NFS:Underground 1, then probably dumped most of his inputs to make the game more arcadish.
rFactor is sort of a cheat though. The developers made a basic game with fantasy cars and tracks, knowing that others would create add-on cars and tracks based on real ones. Not exactly fair, but it's become popular.
http://www.teamredline.co.uk
LFS - one member, Aki Räsänen, AKA "Lefty".
GPL - two members
NR2003 and basic mods - three members
GTP (mod for NR2003) - two members
F1C - two members
Toca race driver 2 - one member
NFS series - zero members (although I like these games).
From what I've read, the "experts" consider NR2003's physics to be the most accurate, not just ovals, but all the road courses available for download and the various mods, like the Trans-Am and GTP mods. Actual Nascar racers rate NR2003 as pretty good, espeically the trucks.
GPL seems to be next on the list, in spite of it's age.
After this, I don't think there's any general agreement among the race sim fans / experts.
Obviously there's LFS, and rFactor, as mentioned in this thread. Plus GTR, GTLegends, F1C and it's mods. GTR / GTLegends includes some real race drivers on it's staff, but I don't know how well this has helped the games. Then again, EA hired a Toyota Atlantic series race driver to assist with NFS:Underground 1, then probably dumped most of his inputs to make the game more arcadish.
rFactor is sort of a cheat though. The developers made a basic game with fantasy cars and tracks, knowing that others would create add-on cars and tracks based on real ones. Not exactly fair, but it's become popular.
Last edited by JeffR, .
If the other simulation games have it correct, with a downforce car like the FO8, the optimal amount of camber will result with higher temps on the insides of the tires.
Based on what I've read and heard from the Caterham and other light race car drivers, bias ply versus radial construction has a big effect on this, as well as just the design of the tire. From what I remember, there are bias ply slicks with much larger optimal slip angles than street oriented radials.
Again, based on what I've read, the smallest working slip angles are found on the Indy Racing League cars, it's about 2 degrees. I'm not sure if the old CART cars had similarly small working slip angles when they ran high speed ovals (Champ cars are almost all road / street courses, and don't run any high speed ovals at all anymore). Modern F1 race cars use tires that run at 3 or 4 degrees slip angle. The old bias ply tires of the 1980's ran with 12 degrees of slip angle. I'm not sure how much more the slip angles were for the 1967 F1 cars, but if GPL's model is close, it was pretty large and the cars had a significant yaw to them when cornering.
Also depending on the load (downforce) factor, there can be some loss of grip if beyond a peak slip angle, according to this web page (which also meantions the 2 degree slip angle for IRL cars).
http://www.smithees-racetech.com.au/ackerman.html
Another link to an article on slip angles versus race car classes:
http://www.autoracing1.com/Mar ... 4/0302NextGenNewTires.asp
I had to sell the Caterham. The guy that was doing the engine mods and maintaince is chronically ill, leaving one other person familiar with the specific mods for my Caterham that resides near San Francisco. I sold the Caterham to a person who lives near San Francisco.
Instead of owning a large home, we live in a medium sized, 2 story condominium we bought back in 1984, and was paid off a long time ago. My wife and I don't travel much, the kids are grown up and moved out, so now my status is married with pet. Since we don't spend money on kids, house, or travel, we spend it on cars every now and then. I usually just buy a car every 8 to 10 years, but the Caterham was spending 75% of it's time in the shop getting upgrades or fixes to the last set of upgrades, because the guy doing this could only do it part time. I ordered the car back in 2003, and sold it about 2 months ago, and the car only had 1800 miles on it (because it was in the shop so often, due to engine upgrade / prototyping). I had a chance to order a Z06 for a good price from a friend at a dealership, so I ordered the Z06 and sold the Caterham. I'm out some money, but I plan on keeping the Z06 for a long time, I got a 7 year warranty for it. I'm 54 years old, so I'm thinking it may be my last chance to own a really quick car. Paul Newman continued racing into his 70's but I don't know what my reactions and condition will be when I get that old (probably end up driving a golf cart). A pic of the Z06 with our home in the background (our place is the open garage door and to the left (single car garage)):
Uhm, did I forget to mention I also own a 2001 Suzuki Hayabusa (it's really quick)? 2001 was one of just 2 years where the side fairings have the falcon (hayabusa means falcon) head pattern. If you look at the picture, the large button is the "eye", and the smaller one lower down is the "nostril" of the beak.
Last edited by JeffR, .
Not sure where GTR fits, but FIA allows TC in GT1 class. A lot of super touring class races allow stability control (individual wheel braking) as well.
The 2006 Z06 Corvette has both TC (ECU) and stability (braking) control. For racing, TC is often disabled, since the stability control does a better job if the driver isn't too heavy on the throttle.
This Sundays Top Gear should be showing the Z06, which got a 1:22.4 on it's test track, just behind the 911 GT3 RSR, and ahead of many exotics like the Murcielago, Gallardo, 911 GT3 (non-race version).
Last edited by JeffR, .
I own a 2006 Corvette Z06. It has both traction control implemented via the ECU by cutting fuel off to one or more cylinders, and stability control implemented via individual wheel braking. In normal mode, both ECU and wheel braking are used to control wheel spin and eliminate yaw. During a 1st gear launch (redlines at 60mph), you can feel the wheels spinning a bit or sometimes more, but the computers quickly kick in and there's no hint of any yaw. The advantage of the wheel braking is that the wheel slip can be more accurately controlled, inspite of engine momentum.
For racing purposes, peformance mode is used, ECU fuel cut off is disabled, but stability control remains enabled.
You can turn off both ECU and stability, but other than spinning the tires to show off, it's not used for serious racers. All the magazine testers run with stability enabled.
FIA F1 class doesn't allow stability (individual wheel braking) control, but many other racing classes (like Dutch Supercar Challenge) do allow it. This would be in a car similar to a BMW 320 STW (super touring class). I'm not sure which cars in LFS are similar to the super touring class cars.
For racing purposes, peformance mode is used, ECU fuel cut off is disabled, but stability control remains enabled.
You can turn off both ECU and stability, but other than spinning the tires to show off, it's not used for serious racers. All the magazine testers run with stability enabled.
FIA F1 class doesn't allow stability (individual wheel braking) control, but many other racing classes (like Dutch Supercar Challenge) do allow it. This would be in a car similar to a BMW 320 STW (super touring class). I'm not sure which cars in LFS are similar to the super touring class cars.
It depends on the car. In real life, many racing cars have their clutches setup to limit the amount of engine braking, probably for two reasons: 1. to keep the rear tires from sliding; 2. to keep the engine from over-revving.
The other issue is that the amount of engine braking depends on what gear you're in and the engine rpms. It isn't consistent. However, I have a tendency to brake a bit early and modulate the throttle while approaching the apex of a corner, but for slow speed turns, I'll sometimes leave the car in 2nd gear until past the apex before downshifting into 1st.
Note also that just cornering hard consumes energy and slows a car down. When cornering hard, my guess is that cornering slows down a car more than engine braking does. I do use the throttle to control how fast the car slows down in a turn, while approaching the apex.
When watching an analisys of a fast lap, I've heard the the expression, "no hint of a lift, just the g forces slowing down the car" more than once, as in this video. I get the impression that F1 cars don't rely on engine braking at all, based on the when the downshifts occur.
spaf1.wmv
The other issue is that the amount of engine braking depends on what gear you're in and the engine rpms. It isn't consistent. However, I have a tendency to brake a bit early and modulate the throttle while approaching the apex of a corner, but for slow speed turns, I'll sometimes leave the car in 2nd gear until past the apex before downshifting into 1st.
Note also that just cornering hard consumes energy and slows a car down. When cornering hard, my guess is that cornering slows down a car more than engine braking does. I do use the throttle to control how fast the car slows down in a turn, while approaching the apex.
When watching an analisys of a fast lap, I've heard the the expression, "no hint of a lift, just the g forces slowing down the car" more than once, as in this video. I get the impression that F1 cars don't rely on engine braking at all, based on the when the downshifts occur.
spaf1.wmv
Or the human driving the car. Humans don't respond within milliseconds, computers do. Sometimes the car is just very powerful, as in the case of a F1 car. Lap times are simply quicker with TC than without it in a F1 and many other race cars.
Some racing cars use individual wheel braking in addition to the ECU for traction control and improved cornering. The braking oriented racing TC systems allow more torque to be applied to the faster rotating outside rear tire, something not possible with normal differential (and specifically banned in FIA F1 series). Bottom line is that braking oriented TC systems keep all 4 tires at optimal slip, something that can't be done without sensors and computers. The result is faster lap times, and there is some benefit as the technology trickles down into street cars.
The other factor is tire wear. TC results in less rear tire wear, which is important in a real race.
True, the Corvette doesn't have enough rearward bias for the amount of power and grip it has. As previously posted, a Caterham has a more rearward weight bias and stickier tires, so it out launches a Corvette. However the Catheham's poor aerodynamics limit it to about 155mph, while the Z06 will reach about 190mph. On a track like Spa, or Road America, the Z06 will trounce the Caterham. On a shorter track, the Catherham would probably have the advantage.
It's not really a fair comparason, as the Caterham is bascially a streel legal very fun track car, but neither car is an all out race car. Both cars would get obliterated by a Radical SR8, with is more track oriented.
Note that I've already posted that I don't think LX type car with 260hp needs TC. At 350hp or more, it probably would need TC, but I don't think anyone is proposing an super fast LX car here.
Last edited by JeffR, .
In the April 2006 edition of Motortrend magazine, they tested a 2006 Corvette Z06 and a Porche 911 Carerra S (and two other cars) at Laguna Seca, with Neil Chirico (apparently their best test driver) at the wheel. The lower powered 911 with more weight over the rear wheels didn't need TC, but Corvette did, as Neil ran it with the stability control set to competition mode. The Corvette has 505hp and weighs 3200lbs (without driver), and has a 51% - 49% front - rear weight bias. Few here in this forum are faster in real life than Neil, and he needed TC on the vette. Also note that the perfomance mode TC on the Vette produces better lap times than with TC off, so even a street car, although expensive, can have a good TC setup.
On the other hand, a Cateham with 260hp has about the same power to weight ratio as the Corvette, but the Caterham has a rearward weight bias (with driver), and stickier tires (for very light cars, tire compounds are softer), so it doesn't need TC.
Bottom line is that some cars are faster with TC, while others don't need it.
On the other hand, a Cateham with 260hp has about the same power to weight ratio as the Corvette, but the Caterham has a rearward weight bias (with driver), and stickier tires (for very light cars, tire compounds are softer), so it doesn't need TC.
Bottom line is that some cars are faster with TC, while others don't need it.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG