Saying stuff like that only makes you look like more of a retard, instead of debating to scipy's (pretty accurate) points, you decide to go totally off-topic and insult him personally. 
I have better things to do then argue with an i*iot who insults me for no fuc*ing reason.. i said what i have to say about this subject, thread title was kinda misleading, but i explained that i didn't mean "disable setups", but try to make them more limited and realistic...
I think you've missed the point, in the case of where I work the budgets are huge for what is being raced and the cars are competitive. We won both the major championships we run cars for, one car ran in a different championship which it was leading until it got badly damaged in a crash (and was repaired and upgraded to be raced in a different series). The cars have everything adjustable (which is effectively free) and lots of components and the entire suspension geometry redesigned in house (which definitely isn't free) the adjustments are largely doable in relatively short periods of time, even in pitstops. Only a few basic adjustments are made though because despite having three day meetings there just isn't any real point in doing it, if the driver(s) are comfortable with the car then that is what you need. In reality data analysis can never be so precise and clinical because the conditions are simply never the same. The fact that LFS has unrealistic setup ranges and fidelity is simply because they are unrealistic, the over dependence on sets is because we always have exactly the same track surface, ambient temperature and humidity, exactly the same unwarped car, the same brand new tyres and engine. In reality it simply isn't possible to do this regardless of how big your budget is or how much you love yourself.
This thread is going nowhere, so let's just agree to disagree.. 
For the record, my point of view was not to "eliminate all setups", but to restrict some car's setups to some degree. A lot less settings for road cars and realistic, physically possible gearbox settings accuracy for all cars.
And I know how to make setups, claiming that those wanting to see restrictions are retarded noobs is not very mature.
So let's move on!
Is there some place one can download setups for endurance racing? My goal is to find one set which I can get used to. Constant fiddling with setups prevents learning the car's behavior in all situations. This can be dangerous for other drivers as well, losing control and causing pileups is not a very good thing..
Now that I think of it, isn't it kind of weird that unstable WR setups are available and apparently widely used, but "general" setups are not.
So could you please post your safe (easy to drive), semi-competetive all-around setups?
For the record, my point of view was not to "eliminate all setups", but to restrict some car's setups to some degree. A lot less settings for road cars and realistic, physically possible gearbox settings accuracy for all cars.
And I know how to make setups, claiming that those wanting to see restrictions are retarded noobs is not very mature.
So let's move on!
Is there some place one can download setups for endurance racing? My goal is to find one set which I can get used to. Constant fiddling with setups prevents learning the car's behavior in all situations. This can be dangerous for other drivers as well, losing control and causing pileups is not a very good thing..
Now that I think of it, isn't it kind of weird that unstable WR setups are available and apparently widely used, but "general" setups are not.
So could you please post your safe (easy to drive), semi-competetive all-around setups?
Thank you for your post, it made my day
Apart from consisting in a very bad ad hominem attack all the post, it just proved that you typed in bad faith. You had nothing to contribute, so please keep your mouth shut.
Unless you can argument what you said (I'm referring the post in which you quoted extensively mine), basically just saying I was an idiot, your post is not relevant to the discussion here.
About the tweaking, says me, based on observations on private on which tweak was extensively used, and it did not show good results.
How I am not good at analogies? I did a simple analogy, to be simple to understand. I am sorry if you are not even able to understand it.
Are you american? I have no idea, since your avatar does not display such flag. And if you are, obviously, you can not understand sarcasm of second degree humor, which is very bad you know... you should think about training to get some
I am not sorry if I offended you, because I didn't write it to offend anyone, so it's your issue if you behave like a startled virgin.And I am not sorry if you thought my last words were a bash. It was an objective advice. I don't know why
is associated to bad in your mind... feeling guilty of something, dear?
It's an analogy (that you didn't understand, basically once again, you start to be good at that ! =p <-- I put that smiley so that you can SEE that there is a sarcasm in there
), and for me, winning is important and being relatively faster than others is important as well. But instead of suggesting downgrading others abilities (locking setups or going to a drift server), I prefer to dedicate myself to training (racing technique AND makign my own setup) to upgrade my own abilities.Sorry to support the idea that tending to the better is more enjoyable that putting everybody on a low average...
Back on topic, I wanted to direct you to a suggestion some guy made months ago (and I give total credit to him for that, I just don't remember the name). He basically said that instead of limiting all setups, it would be better to create 3 subcategories of setups with different limitations
- Pure stock (only tires and wheel adjustable)
- Spec-up (with more things adjustable to a limited level)
- Complete custom (with basically what I have today).
Race cars and low formulas, would have the choice of the two latter obviously, and F1 would only have the latter.
But I think I won't say what I just said because I will be bashed by Bandit77 for killing baby seals
(<-- this was again a sarcasm, but harder to see, because I didn't put the =p smiley, sorry... :shrugThe best possible solution. Both "camps" will be pleased
. Totally agree.
from the first to the last sentence. and yeah, I'm waiting for these setups too.I first didn't want to respond to this, as to me there's no benefit and i'm a bit selfish in this respect.
What I have to say, though: I find it amazing (in a negative way) that YOU accuse me of reading too much between the lines. You know the saying about the glass-house, don't you?
And I still believe your analogy was very lame.
But hey, from now on I will just pretend that all of what you say is the truth and I just don't understand it - when in reality I just don't care anymore.
There are a lot of endurance sets on Setupgrid. I'm sure you will find one that suits you.
I am sad that you over reacted to my statements... Sad, not sorry.
What I found really disrespectful is that I was expressing some ideas, and instead of showing me they were wrong/argumenting yours were better, you just took my post for what it wasn't with the purpose to make me appear as a total idiot. You tried to play smart, I showed you I could do as good as you on that specific matter. End of the discussion
I never said the idea was shit, I said the reasons invoked and the means offered are not good in my opnion (for various reasons I stated before). I like when people agree with me, but when I like a lot more is when they actually prove my point to be wrong, with new arguments, because by doing so, we tend to find a better solution (like the one I quoted in my precedent post, which was the best answer to a similar deliberation topic about setups I have found so far).
The forums are not a debate, they tend to be more of a deliberation, because a broad range of alternatives is at grasp. This is good, and should stay that way.
But hey man, if you want to not talk anymore, it's up to you, I would be really pleased if you seconded each and every of my posts. And when I'm pleased, I give a lot of Jaffa Cakes away !
What I found really disrespectful is that I was expressing some ideas, and instead of showing me they were wrong/argumenting yours were better, you just took my post for what it wasn't with the purpose to make me appear as a total idiot. You tried to play smart, I showed you I could do as good as you on that specific matter. End of the discussion
I never said the idea was shit, I said the reasons invoked and the means offered are not good in my opnion (for various reasons I stated before). I like when people agree with me, but when I like a lot more is when they actually prove my point to be wrong, with new arguments, because by doing so, we tend to find a better solution (like the one I quoted in my precedent post, which was the best answer to a similar deliberation topic about setups I have found so far).
The forums are not a debate, they tend to be more of a deliberation, because a broad range of alternatives is at grasp. This is good, and should stay that way.
But hey man, if you want to not talk anymore, it's up to you, I would be really pleased if you seconded each and every of my posts. And when I'm pleased, I give a lot of Jaffa Cakes away !
Ok thanks for the info, I'll check them out.
i wouldnt mind having limited setups,
simply because it would save me lots of time
im fine with the way it is now too tho
simply because it would save me lots of time
im fine with the way it is now too tho
: hahhahhahha GG. I'm two-faced just because I don't agree with your ridiculous point of view and fullfil my responsibility to point it out with sarcasam? You should go into politics, maybe u can be pres0dente!BTW I make it a point to never flatout insult anyone, unlike u just did. I always list specific points and reasons which kinda always lead to a uniform conclusion that the person in question has diminished mental abilities. Tnx for falling in line with the theory.
This "argument" makes me think you have kinda diminished mental abilities yourself.
A "flatout insult" is a "flatout insult", specific points and reasons or not..
u were orignaly thinking of a detriot locker thats only locked under load ie full throttle these are extreamly bad no matter what way you look at it not good for drag use or any other use then having a locker in the car thats street legal cause cops wont know its their unless they open the diff.
the mini spool/full spools are the fully locked diff and i have one in my track car live rear axel it was a cheap 90$ alternitve to the 1700$+ for the 2 way lsd option the main problem with it is the car setup can become unstable and the suspension and mainly the rear sway bar has to be altered to suit the locked diff.
I would never drive with a bottem of the range 700$ LSD ever again they are dangerious and inconsistant and caused me to allmost hit the wall on the last corner of queensland race way due to it changing its mind from 2 wheels to 1 wheel and back and forth.
allso can IRS have spools? i havent heard of a car that has IRS with a spool.
PS duck ur in the v8 clubman racing hey?
You can disagree of course, but what part of my first post made you go all rampage? I'm mentally challenged because i don't want a billion setup options in a freakin XFG that doesn't even have a rollcage? Those billion options wouldn't be such a problem, but combining them you can make an redicolously unrealistic result. Are you a fu*kin mechanic, you work for Mclaren F1 team or something, so my post totally insulted you like you make a living out of making setups?
You're just a geek who has plenty of time to explore all possibilities with a setup and make the one that takes advantage of all the holes and inconsistencies of the physics engine.. (i don't mean this generally, there are offcourse people who know what their doing actually)
I'm just wondering what is actually that wrong with the setups, that makes them so unrealistic as some ppl here say.
I'd like to see one of these unrealistic with physics flaws taken advantage from setups everyone seems to be on.
I mean, I'm not mechanic, and barely understand the basics of making a setup, so I'm just asking what is so wrong with the 'fast sets'?
I'd like to see one of these unrealistic with physics flaws taken advantage from setups everyone seems to be on.
I mean, I'm not mechanic, and barely understand the basics of making a setup, so I'm just asking what is so wrong with the 'fast sets'?
It's the infinitly adjustable things, such as gear ratios to 0.01 of a ratio on all individual gears and then final drive, ability to adjust suspension in 0.1 intervals and the like - That's what some people have the problem with.
As I've said before, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, but people are most likely going to whinge till they get thier way.
As I've said before, if it ain't broke, don't fix it, but people are most likely going to whinge till they get thier way.
Actually the whole setup philosophy in LFS is almost opposite to what is needed in real life.
In LFS it’s perfectly ok for a fast setup to load as match as possible the outside tire of the end you want more traction, not giving a damn about the inside tire.
IRL you want to keep the tires at the end you want more traction, as equally loaded as possible…
That’s why fast FZR setups are set up mostly with basic overseer from the suspension stiffness. I am not talking about obvious spring and ARB stiffness values but for relative stiffness/mass values.
And that’s why All FWD car setups are set always with a lot higher overall suspension stiffness at the front comparing to the back. Again talking about stiffness/mass relations and not actual numbers.
The only think that makes some times RWD cars more stable by softening the rear suspension, is the way power gets delivered... because that way some of the engine's power is transferred to the ground thought the inside tire by the diff and in that way you get some initial safe-understeer while increasing the throttle. Without that meaning that the back end has more traction than the front cause of the softer suspention, as it sould be.
But guess what… no setup resstriction is going to solve that problem... this is caused by inaccurate tire physics.
No matter the restrictions on available settings… the same “unrealistic” setups will continue to exist unless something is done to the tire physics.
I haven't seen this "stiffer = more grip" thing in LFS since the early demo tests in late 2002.
Yes, some of the FWD cars in LFS typically use sets that are rather stiff at the front, at least for hotlapping and short races. This is allows them to lift the inside front wheel and, with a bit of throttle, use the outside front to pull the front of the car around, helping the car turn. A kart uses much the same principle in the rear. Note that this is very, VERY hard on the front tires.
In the FZR, the mass is carried very far to the rear and the tires are much wider in the rear than in the front. Thus, a fairly heavy oversteer bias is required in the suspension to counter the very heavy understeer bias in the mass distribution and tires.
In my years of making LX4, LX6, MRT, XRR, FZR, FOX, FO8, and BF1 sets, I've never found stiffening the front to result in increased oversteer, nor has stiffening the rear resulted in reduced oversteer.
Yes, some of the FWD cars in LFS typically use sets that are rather stiff at the front, at least for hotlapping and short races. This is allows them to lift the inside front wheel and, with a bit of throttle, use the outside front to pull the front of the car around, helping the car turn. A kart uses much the same principle in the rear. Note that this is very, VERY hard on the front tires.
In the FZR, the mass is carried very far to the rear and the tires are much wider in the rear than in the front. Thus, a fairly heavy oversteer bias is required in the suspension to counter the very heavy understeer bias in the mass distribution and tires.
In my years of making LX4, LX6, MRT, XRR, FZR, FOX, FO8, and BF1 sets, I've never found stiffening the front to result in increased oversteer, nor has stiffening the rear resulted in reduced oversteer.
It's not the same in all cars. But it is still there. Also it's not that easy as stiffening the end you want for more grip. It needs the apropriate damping settings.
For the FZR I allready said that I am talking about stifness/mass relations and not absolute values... Of cource because its so rear heavy it needs so mutch harder suspention at the back than in the front.
As for other RWD's I allready said the main reason in most Rwd cars that suspention stifness seams to do the right thing is because of the differential.
In LX6 for example it's this is not so noticeable... but still after hours of testing I have found that appart from making it not so responsife... hardening the front/softening the rear gives almost no extra traction at the rear.
Also this depends on the camber settings. For some short tracks that have usualy left or right turs, where there is beneficial to have one side of the car with positive camber. The softer end indeed has more traction because the inside tire's camber angle is almost parallel with the outside tire's angle.
Yes yes I allso know that. Thats exactly what I am talking about. In a car (not a cart) only the outside tire sould not be able to produce as mutch grip as two more equaly loaded tires.
(On carts the tires have to cope with much less load comparing with cars, talking about contact patch/mass and there is nothing else than a locked diff at the rear so you really can’t do anything else to make it turn other than lift the inside rear wheel.)
have you ever tried to make an FWD setup In LFS using some oversteer in the springs for a change? eg stiffness distribution 40% front 60% rear... using the appropriate diff of course ...
I have tried realy hard to make a setup like that... I actualy made an FXO setup that had great turn in and mid corner speed... but it was rubish on conren exits. Yes according to LFS's tire physics its way better to use only one heavyly loaded wheel.
Of course it increases tire wear... and thank God at least this works normally..
Anyway I am not making that out of my head. I face it every time I have to make a new setup for my team.
For the FZR I allready said that I am talking about stifness/mass relations and not absolute values... Of cource because its so rear heavy it needs so mutch harder suspention at the back than in the front.
As for other RWD's I allready said the main reason in most Rwd cars that suspention stifness seams to do the right thing is because of the differential.
In LX6 for example it's this is not so noticeable... but still after hours of testing I have found that appart from making it not so responsife... hardening the front/softening the rear gives almost no extra traction at the rear.
Also this depends on the camber settings. For some short tracks that have usualy left or right turs, where there is beneficial to have one side of the car with positive camber. The softer end indeed has more traction because the inside tire's camber angle is almost parallel with the outside tire's angle.
Yes yes I allso know that. Thats exactly what I am talking about. In a car (not a cart) only the outside tire sould not be able to produce as mutch grip as two more equaly loaded tires.
(On carts the tires have to cope with much less load comparing with cars, talking about contact patch/mass and there is nothing else than a locked diff at the rear so you really can’t do anything else to make it turn other than lift the inside rear wheel.)
have you ever tried to make an FWD setup In LFS using some oversteer in the springs for a change? eg stiffness distribution 40% front 60% rear... using the appropriate diff of course ...
I have tried realy hard to make a setup like that... I actualy made an FXO setup that had great turn in and mid corner speed... but it was rubish on conren exits. Yes according to LFS's tire physics its way better to use only one heavyly loaded wheel.
Of course it increases tire wear... and thank God at least this works normally..
Anyway I am not making that out of my head.
I face it every time I have to make a new setup for my team.I saw and understood your argument and that is why I mentioned the difference in tire width between the front and rear. The suspension must also be adjusted to compensate for this inherent understeer bias.
I haven't seen this behavior change as a result of using a locked differential on the RWD cars, although I suppose it may be possible to set up a RWD car to act like a kart, lifting the inside rear. I haven't seen it in practice, though.
Likewise, it's not like the cars with other drivetrain types don't have differentials.
XFG: locked diff, hybrid tyres on the rear.
XRG: locked diff.
Maybe there are some others, but I downloaded 6, and 6 were this way. It actually doesn't feel too ugly in the XRG, but the XFGs sure do not feel too realistic.
Of course it has a lot to do with the game-physics not being perfect (tyres seem to be really horrible), but these setups clearly exploit the faulty physics.
So, to be competitive and to fight with the same weapons you really need to have an exploit-set that is not realistic.
You might say you CAN also be competitive with a realistic setup because setups only matter so much, BUT:
Whereas I'm still not very quick with an exploit-set (only did a couple of laps), I'm already a tiny bit faster than with my rather realistic "feel good" set... despite of two or three obvious mistakes in the lap.
Ok, this is maybe related to myself... however, there must be a reason why the fast sets are exploit-sets.
I hope you didn't lose me here. The points I want to make are:
1 - high adjustability make exploiting faulty physics more possible / easier.
2 - exploit-sets are faster but unrealistic
3 - in order to have equal opportunities you need to have the same set (i.e. an exploit-set)
4 - thus you can choose between being competitive or a realistic experience.
Limited setups could be limited in a way to minimize exploiting. Just as an example no locked diffs (at least until the tyre issue is solved), no knobblies except when on rallyX-tracks.
So this was about limited setups for more realism.
As for the "only driving skills count" aspect: I'm looking forward to the veedub. It'll show if the concept is valuable. (f'ing twist... I don't like the car itself at all :razz
IF it is valuable (which I believe), I hope that the levels of adjustability for all cars will be reworked, i.e. the lower the class the less options and coarser the steps.
Of course, therefore the classes have to be defined.
On the other hand I didn't pay mutch attention to what you stated there
so yeah you are right for that. But this still is not an excuse for the tire physics in general 
This will give some nasty initial oversteer when aplying throttle because the outside tire wants to propel the hole car. Not because it has less traction. In FWD it's ok but in RWD it's going to be tough to handle.
The oposite thought (softening) works realy whell cause of the resistance caused by the locked (or high locking) diff. And that's what masks the problem so In most Rwd cars the stifness changes, produce usualy the disirable result. (softer rear = more understeer)
they have but in 4wd you can do whatever you whant with torque distribution so the problem there is allso not so noticeable. (only if you experiment with a great variation on suspention stifness distribution between front and rear you will notice that something is going wrong)
And on the FWD it's... well ahh whatever... exactly the oposite.
I laugh my ass off every time I get that
look when I say that someone needs a bit harder ARB at the back for less oversteer while appling the throttle. 
This is not going to be solved by setup restrictions.
Server side setup “rules” appropriate for cup racing would be interesting… Just that.
The majority of setups is locked diff... With the wheelbase of every car except maybe the MRT, you shouldn't be able to do a turn in the car - yet not only does it turn the car faster, it also propels it out of the corner faster as there is no torque loss due to diff action...
I too think the physics are the root cause of the unrealistic setups, not the other way round... Adjusting the heat/traction curve, as well as the longitudinal slip/traction curve and/or force combining I think would make many of those unrealistic setups disappear...
Very true, I can't do anything but agree.
@kaynd, Keeping traction on all tires is not what every racing engineer is looking for.
As far as I remember, former rally/asphalt rally driver Jean Ragnotti driving for Renault at that time was extensively using a turn-in technique in which the inside rear was sometimes 10cms off the ground. This is what made him famous, and yet he was really fast (not only chav driving
)@Forbin, in some cases a stiffer rear suspension can actually create understeer, or a stiff one can create understeer. For example, when exiting, if you have all of the weight on your rear wheels, with your front skidding lightly (super-understeer), if one of your rear wheel starts skidding, you'll not be able to counter the motion with the steering.
From what I have been told when tuning the suspension, I tend to use the optimum spring frequencies, with respect to the relative mass of both ends. Because a lighter sprung mass requires harder suspensions, in the XRG for example, I will choose relatively stiff suspension (I have found that the WR values for the springs were very adequate), and a rear suspension relatively stiffer at the rear than at the front. I didn't yet work on a setup for an FWD, but it would be on the same concept, with stiffer springs at the rear and softer at the front, with a damping that can maximise the load of the front wheels all the time (and one or two clicks of toe out at the rear, which is very common IRL and improves the cornering of that FWD beast
).For midships, it is usually the opposite, I tend to have springs according to the relative weight of each end of the car, and then fine tune the damping/ARBs, in order to get the proper behavior.
Actually since a couple of weeks I have found out something with the ARBs that they don't tell you about in the LFS setup guide or Bob's Smith VHPA (that is a very good tool by the way). But I won't tell it to you, setuper's secret
Setups needs to go..
(176 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG