The online racing simulator
Searching in All forums
(43 results)
1
Kosmo
S2 licensed
Real manly men don't even need to shift
Kosmo
S2 licensed
Oh I don't remember who said it. I know certain cars have this as factory equipment, I wasn't talking about those, since as you said those are there primarily to protect the engine from inexperienced drivers. Also, car companies often like to show off with gadgets so a simple light wouldn't cut it anyway.
Kosmo
S2 licensed
I see shift lights are a bit misunderstood and maybe overrated here, some of the people who posted have probably never pushed a real life engine and don't know what it feels like, or their RL experience is limited to 1 or 2 cars.

First of all, yes you can judge when to shift either with the tachometer or by feel/sound. No you won't get it right the first time you drive a car, but as you learn it you learn where to shift. Basically not even a dyno is needed, giving full throttle from low revs up to the limiter in 2nd or 3rd gear (or even 1st depending on the power) will give you a good idea of where the engine starts pulling and where it stops. So basically, without being too accurate initially you have to keep the engine inside that RPM area. Usually you need to shift very near peak power, but not much past it especially when the engine is peaky as the power drops dramatically after peak power RPM. Then you need the next gear to be "in the power", meaning the RPM should be after peak torque. That's the very general rule. The point that each gear is different is not really valid, cause when you setup a race car, what you strive to achieve with the gearing except the correct top speed for the track, is even spacing between the gears, exactly to not have this problem. In road cars the gears are also usually pretty much evenly spaced, except maybe the top gear in some cars. As for not being able to calculate ideal shift points by feel, that is partly true, a mathematical analysis and calculation will be more accurate, but is really not needed, it's overkill as Tristan said.

Now, regarding the actual shift lights. Most race cars use preset RPM lights for the reasons I stated above. There are dynamic lights, but they don't work like in LFS, they don't calculate the ideal shift point, they can just be set to come on at different RPMs depending on the gear you're in. The calculation of the ideal shift point for each gear will still have to be done by you. As for beeping lights... Well. I have only ever come across two cars with those in my life, they are completely pointless, redundant and distracting. No they are not preferred by racing drivers, and no they are not common in F1. Also, shift lights IRL are not set to come on at the ideal shift point, they are set to come on just a bit before that, so by the time you react to it and reach out to shift, you are at the shift point. That's why you can see in race cars, the driver usually in high gears (where the acceleration is slower) will wait a couple of seconds after the shift light comes on before shifting, to let the RPMs build up to the shift point. The exception is when the car has a row of lights (like F1 cars) to alert you the shift point is coming up. In that case, last shift light comes on=ideal shift point.

While not all drivers (even top level ones) can always get the most out of their engines (some are better than others), any good driver after a short time in a car can judge when to change gear. More precisely, after shifting he can easily spot if he has shifted either too soon or too late. Maybe he can't get it within 100 RPM of the ideal shift point, but he can get it as close as makes no difference.

Ultimately IMO, shift lights are only really necessary on high powered cars, where sometimes you can have a hard time keeping track of what's going on around you, controlling the car and monitoring the tachometer/sound/vibrations. Especially in the lower gears where the acceleration will be very fierce and the RPMs will build up very fast while it might take a lot of concentration to put all that power down.

That's all, thanks for reading this far.
Kosmo
S2 licensed
Quote from Scawen :Is there any case for getting your money back?

Fo example, on the Vista box, was it made clear to buyers that an important feature had been disabled and you might be better off sticking with XP?

Should it have been made clear...? Just wondering.

What company would ever do that m8? It's like a car company saying "well this is our new model, but it lacks the equipment of the old one so better not buy it". It will never happen, everybody wants to sell the new product, same goes for getting your money back. It's always the consumer's responsibility to do proper research before buying (anything).
Kosmo
S2 licensed
Quote from lfs-drift staff :i drove a pontiac transport (98-01 i dont remember the year)

and in winter it was a pure mess to be assisted with abs

What I mentioned in my post was about newer ABS systems, old ones were definitely not as good as a skilled driver. Also, not all ABSs are equal, if the ABS in a Golf GTI brakes better than most drivers, it doesn't mean the same can be said for a Kia Picanto.

Quote from lfs-drift staff :i personally prefer to dose the brake myself but i never locked the wheel on a clean road

I prefer that too, but always keeping in mind that a good ABS will outbrake me.

Quote from nikka :For example, you can't distribute brake force between right and left wheel without ABS, a (modern) ABS system do.

+1 very important point

Quote from nikka :And in an emergency situation your instincts will tell you to STOP! and you will apply full braking power. Some things just can't be practised.

Strongly disagree there, everything can be trained. You instinct is telling you to stop, not lock the wheels. If you do it a few times, your instinct is to brake at the limit of grip, not putting the pedal to the floor. It's the same as cornering really, your instinct is telling you to turn the wheel enough to make the turn, it's not telling you to turn it all the way to the lock now is it?

I have never locked a wheel more than a split second while panic braking in non ABS equipped cars IRL. And yes sadly I've had more than my share of panic brake situations with all the idiots populating the roads.
Kosmo
S2 licensed
Quote from Bansky :Belive me when i say, that a skilled driver, with out ABS will still be faster than one with ABS, but not that skilled.

This is caused by the locking <-> unlocking sequence of the ABS, wich does not allow to break as constantly as a skilled driver.

That used to be correct a few years ago, modern ABS systems now brake better than a skilled driver. Well I don't know if the likes of MS have done such tests, but I have seen racing drivers testing ABS cars, and their braking distance is considerably longer than the ABS. ABS has become really advanced nowadays, it can detect individual wheels locking, it can detect different surface types and grip levels and transitions between them, etc. That said, I still believe a skilled driver will prefer to not use ABS.
Kosmo
S2 licensed
Quote from AndRand :not enough diff coast lock? (I thought diff coast lock adds braking engine force on braking ) - adds braking force to driven wheels, front wheels in that case.

Diff coast lock does what the name implies. Diff is locked more while coasting. Essentially causes more understeer when off the throttle.
Kosmo
S2 licensed
Quote from Gentlefoot :Unfortunately it is typical behaviour on all web forums from my experience.

Fortunately no, it isn't.
Kosmo
S2 licensed
Quote from word. :Horn should be removed in GTRs. Just flash your lights.

+1 to that.

Quote from ajp71 :Equally if you blast the horn all the time and consider there to be an issue with people not seeing you have you considered they have seen you and have decided not to give room to the stupid over aggressive wanker blasting his horn at them?

+1 to that too.

Quote from S14 DRIFT :How else can you alert the dork infront of you that he's turning in on you?

-1 from me.

If he's in front of you and turning in on you, it means he doesn't want to leave you any room which is his right. You don't alert him, you brake. It's your responsibility to avoid the guy in front of you, not his, both in racing and on the road.
Kosmo
S2 licensed
Quote from Becky Rose :Just a joke about the fabbled reliability of German cars being a long way from the reality, although VW aren't too bad, didn't meen to touch a nerve!

No you didn't touch a nerve , I just found it weird since I've owned two VW, for 4-5 years each, and the rest of my family has also owned 5 more VW cars without a single problem.
Kosmo
S2 licensed
Quote from Becky Rose :it's going to take Scawen a long time to code all the mechanical failures in for the VW first

Uhmmmm.... What?
Kosmo
S2 licensed
No offence taken. Nothing too amazing... But too many to list here I think. Lots and lots of slow ones, and some relatively fast ones too, Clio Sport, 106 Rallye/Gti/Citroen Saxo VTS with all types of mods, Civic and CRX VTI, a quite powerful Fiat Coupe 20v, a Daewoo Lanos with a 2.0 Calibra engine , and many others... I should say that many of these had track or hillclimb suspension setups (to an extent - all are daily drives). And my powerless but setup for the track VW Polo.

EDIT: Those were some of the FWD ones since I mostly talked about them. There are also RWDs and 4WDs in my list but not as many as the FWDs
Last edited by Kosmo, .
Kosmo
S2 licensed
The understeer thing is a big discussion. In any real car I've driven and pushed, I can definately feel the wheel get light when understeering. Not too much, but you can feel it very clearly when it happens. In a FWD, if the car understeers due to power this is very noticeable, the wheel usually lightens up so much that if you let it go it will just stay at the angle it was at. But there are many things playing a role in this, and the wheel turning on it's own when oversteering, like the caster angle. And let's not forget torque steer in FWD.
Kosmo
S2 licensed
I often set up a field with a slow car in front like the UF1, then sth like the XRT and then an LX6. Then I get in the BF1 give them a head start and try to pass them all in one lap. Seeing the replay from the cockpit of the UF1, with the BF1 passing by screaming at high speed is amazing.
Kosmo
S2 licensed
Quote from f4sttr@ck :I would like to see a corvette in this game, would be so much fun. It would have to be an old stingray though or something of the sort. Adding a new corvette would just demolish anything in this game except the bf1.

Quote from f4sttr@ck :actually, the corvette Z06 has a max speed of almost 200 mph, getting it to reach that speed might be hard, although considering the F08 and the GTR top out at around an average of 165, depending on the set, it would put up a hell of a fight.

Quote from f4sttr@ck :Well actually it looks like a GTR would have more downforce then a corvette, and yeah slicks are faster, but the Z06 has 15 more horsepower then the GTR cars so I would guess on a pretty even match.

http://images.motortrend.com/feature...enger_side.jpg

http://www.asmo.allian.net/pics/dive...ian_1280_2.jpg

My money is still on the vette.

Mercy... Please... I don't know if I should laugh or cry...
Kosmo
S2 licensed
The point is that rotaries and recips have been aided equally (more or less) by computers.

My point about jet and electric engines was (I thought it was clear) that as far as engines go, both of these two (rotary and recip) are pretty low on efficiency, so I wouldn't call one of them a failure and the other a success. As far as power producing units go, neither of them is a real groundbreaking success. They are both quite a bit below average. Of course they are convenient, small, cheap, but that's a different matter. Mechanically they are both "failures" on an equal level. This was a response to your calling the Wankel a failure, and my point is that yes, it's a failure, just as much of a failure as the recip is.

Listen man, I don't support either type more than the other, I actually prefer recips since I'm most comfortable with them, have more experience. I also agree with many of the things you say, but none of those make the Wankel a failure, or the recip a 'proper' engine and not the Wankel, like you said. And certainly and most importantly, none of those make rotaries unsuitable for LFS.

Quote from wheel4hummer :This is a slightly off-topic question but does anyone know if the efficiency of an engine is increased if a fluid-fluid heat exchanger is used to heat the fuel using the hot coolant?

Of course it is (the thermal efficiency), this way the heat is recycled, not lost.
Kosmo
S2 licensed
I disagree on the first part, the CFD have aided the Wankel but the piston engine has waaaaaaay more development time and that supports my argument not yours (why did you put an "AND" there?). The first reciprocating internal combustion engine prototype was built around 1850. 1950 was generous. 1980 is dreaming. You think they didn't use computers in 1980?

The Wankel is a failure? Really? Well that's my cue to end this discussion, since you prove for the millionth time how closeminded you are.

Since you mentioned it though, the Wankel engine type generally has a thermal efficiency of 20-30%, exactly the same as a typical 4 stroke piston engine. I'll just mention one example, that of gas turbine engines which typically have thermal efficiencies of over 40%, and as high as 60%. And let's not talk about electric motors which can reach 99%. So I'd say the reciprocating engine is just as much a failure as the Wankel. Just FYI the most efficient internal combustion piston engine in the world is a two-stroke, a ship engine with 51% thermal efficiency - almost 10% more than the most efficient four-stroke.
Kosmo
S2 licensed
You mean for LFS?

Also I forgot:

Quote from tristancliffe :If you measure the engine by performance per litre of fuel used it wouldn't hold a candle to a four stroke.

Personally I wouldn't measure it like that, why would I? In a sportscar fuel consumption would be the last thing on my mind, it's built for speed not economy. In a race it's a different matter since it affects strategy, but still it depends on how much faster (if at all) it would be.

Quote from tristancliffe :Even an old one with vaguely comparible developments.

The way I see it, to have a piston engine with a vaguely comparable development we must compare to pre 1950 V12's with 200hp.
Kosmo
S2 licensed
I know you weren't exactly correcting me, but I didn't mean exactly that as you probably imagined. I meant it produces power twice as many times as a piston engine in a given amount of time. The amount of power produced is another matter of course.
Kosmo
S2 licensed
Quote from george_tsiros :it's a 2.6liter engine, dude, not a 1.3l.

it's like comparing a 500cc two stroke with a 500cc four stroke.

Not really, it is actually a 1.3l, the fact that it is twice as efficient, that it does double the work in the same time or that certain racing regulations put it in the 2.6l class to remove any unfair advantage does not automatically double it's actual displacement. Same goes for piston 2 strokes.
Kosmo
S2 licensed
Quote from george_tsiros :also the argument about not knowing, i didn't say i know. i said i think. if i would say i know i would prove it rather concretely. the analogy with the number of cars in europe is rather weak anyway. just because he was wrong doesn't mean anyone else who thinks something is wrong. it's a logical fallacy.

It just means that you can't possibly predict what will happen after say, 50 years of evolution. Esp since (I imagine) you are not a Mazda mechanic working on Wankel's evolution.

Quote from george_tsiros :but if we are to compare the wankel for revs, power, weight, the bike engines beat it. (both have relatively weak torque)

Let's see... First of all and most important: revs alone mean nothing. They are a means to sth (power) not the goal. So strike that.

Power: ZX-14: ~190hp, RX-7: 280hp, RX-8 (to exclude the benefit of the turbo): 240hp

Torque: ZX-14: 154Nm, RX-7: 313Nm, RX-8: 211Nm.

And that's with 100cc less.

I'd say the torque figures are not close enough to claim that both have relatively weak torque. The rotary has much more than the bike (even the N/A RX-8 has 37% more). And that's with the rotary revving a good 3-4000 less than the bike. Imagine at the same RPMs.

I will give you the weight since I don't know the exact figures but I imagine the bike is lighter. I don't think that the difference is big though.

You should keep in mind however that race engineers and engine manufacturers/tuners, when rating an engine as to how successful/advanced it is, or how suitable it is for tuning or racing, the first two things they look at is it's power/displacement ratio and the piston's speed. the latter cannot be fairly compared between the two types of course.

Regarding the TSI, as you know VW strives for safety and reliability, that's why the rev limit is so low. If they went higher it would be even more powerful.

Finally, about the Wankel's reliability. Sure, especially with the old ones, you have to warm it up good, change the oil regularly, keep an eye on the oil and water temps, etc. However you have to do that with every engine, esp if you push it a lot. Sure the rotary will break earlier than the others if abused, but make no mistake, piston engines will break just fine when abused like that. Just a little later than the Wankel (usually).

Also I completely agree with what Breizh said.

It just saddens me to see that (again) ppl seem to fear and bash what they don't understand (make that "don't have too much experience in").
Kosmo
S2 licensed
Quote from george_tsiros :why do you think that? i think that whatever research is done on this type of engine, due to its very nature, will never 'give back' the effort. Too much fuss for little gain. For example: you want high-power low-weight engines? look at bike engines... you don't have to go rotary. (the last kawa 1l gives 170 at the wheel.)

This reminds me of someone who said way back in the day with absolute certainty, that there will never be more than 50 (or whatever small number) cars in Europe. The truth is there is no way of knowing what would (or will) happen. You can't seriously argue that the Wankel has had even one fifth of the research and evolution the piston engine enjoys.

As for bike engines, true they can give you about the same power/displacement ratio as a rotary engine BUT... Take a look at their torque curves. Almost non-existant since bikes don't need much torque due to their very low weight.

Anyway I don't necessarily support either side of the discussion, but I'm once again seriously annoyed by the close mindedness of certain ppl here, and by their thinking that it's somehow their right to decide what's good for or has a place in LFS or not (not talking about you here George). I'll just have to stop returning to these forums... And yes I totally expect some of these ppl to quote my previous sentence and write sth amazingly clever like "bye".

BTW, F1's do 6G's in turns? Where did you get that from man?
Kosmo
S2 licensed
Quote from spanks :I love drag racing, and the complexity of it goes into it is what is overlooked, and what I meant by people discrediting it. Its not just hit the gas and hope you're the fastest, at least in its more sophisticated forms.

I see your point and I agree 100%.

Quote from spanks :and launching with a manual trans, you either feather it off the line, pin the gas and slip the clutch a bunch, pin the gas and drop the clutch and most likely have tire spin, have slicks and dump the clutch and hope you have enough power not to bog. All of those are less consistent than a launch with an automatic trans.

I already agreed that autos are more constistent, definately. But manuals can be faster. But I agree that in the higher classes ate least an auto is probably the only way.

Quote from spanks :With a manual you have to start with the clutch in, and foot on the gas, then jump over to the brake and try to stop the car, but not stop the tires from spinning.

You can also heel&toe, but both of these require some skill and practice, I agree it's not the easiest thing to do.

Quote from spanks : I was not trying to stir up any hostility, I guess I was a bit angry that night

I misunderstood certain parts of your post it seems and overreacted a bit
Kosmo
S2 licensed
Quote from spanks :Also, to anyone who thinks a manual transmission is instantly superior to an automatic...stop being so naive

Nobody said that... But they are. For ppl who didn't learn to shift from their grandmother and never tried to improve at least.

Quote from spanks :boosted applications, you don't lose boost when shifting

This can be done just the same with a manual.

Quote from spanks : drag racing = far superior with an automatic vs a standard manual trans. Its much more consistent for bracket racing, doesn't have a clutch to fry, can do a better power brake burnout, and again, if the car is boosted.

Actually a few auto transmissions are more durable than certain manuals. I agree they're also more consistent, and they're also easier on high powered cars where controlling the car is a job on it's own. But manuals are faster in smaller categories.

Quote from spanks :Also, you get better launches. Even underpowered commuter cars with manual trans can spin the tires on launch with a full throttle clutch dump.

Hmm... Not on the dragstrip. Underpowered cars will even have difficulty starting IRL. And again, you must have learned from your grandmother to launch full throttle with just a clutch dump.

Quote from spanks :Yes, you lose about another 5 or so % in driveline efficiency

I assume you're talking about the auto?

Quote from spanks :many people discredit drag racing as an actual form of racing though, so I doubt many people will even accept this logic.

Uhm... So it isn't a racing form??? And it's furthermore discredited to be called that? What is it, a circus? It is you who discredits it my friend. Just so you know, drag racing is an official FIA championship.
Kosmo
S2 licensed
Quote from cardriverx :I say as long as we have a dragstrip, who not Nitrous? Of course it would have to be configurable for jetting, tank size, wet or dry shot, port or mani injection, etc (not that many of you would know what all that is, there are alot of very ignorant people here).

No real point in that since we don't even have engine tuning (not yet at least, I hope - I said tuning not modding BTW).

Quote from cardriverx : Some of you guys have to realize that racing covers straight line and turns. This is a racing simulator, so it would only be fair to include drag racing too.

It should include many more types of racing, including proper drag races IMO, but certain ppl here seem to think that LFS is made exclusively for them. So since they don't like drag racing it shouldn't be in LFS. illepall

Anyway, nitrous IMO will not work too great in LFS, being a multiplayer sim mainly, not even for drag races. Adjustable turbo boost would be good tho (with more fuel consumption). Along with engine tuning...

Quote from cardriverx :A real automatic transmission

I have to say I don't see the point in that. What racing series uses auto transmissions?
1
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG