This is a popular but naive view. The fact remains that any two drivers do not set up and drive the same car the same way, they are not as fast as each other in the same place on the circuit (yes a real circuit not an oval), they think differently about racing and have different styles, their teams are involved and are also pivotal in the success or failure of the car and driver. There is so much involved in getting your team's car across the line these days in real racing. It is not mainly about the machine at all. In F1 we see the pinnacle of racing (and even aerospace) technology, but still there are great differences between drivers and other people important to the drivers. A race is conducted across several days and can be won or lost at any point therein. It is too complex for many to enjoy, but to paint F1 as a simple case of "the fastest car wins" is really wrong. Using Nascar as a comparitive example only lessens the credibilty of the argument since it has nothing in common with F1 at all and is so far apart from F1 as to be considered incomaparable. I agree that if you apply F1 conditions to oval racing it would be even more boring (hard to imagine, I know) than it already is but F1 has variety built in to the racing where Nascar has no variety at all. Perhaps oval racing needs a push to pass button to prevent the drivers from dozing off? Then again, causing half the field to erupt into a blazing ball of flame seems to be a real crowd pleaser for many Nascar fans.
This is a popular but naive view. The fact remains that any two drivers do not set up and drive the same car the same way, they are not as fast as each other in the same place on the circuit (yes a real circuit not an oval), they think differently about racing and have different styles, their teams are involved and are also pivotal in the success or failure of the car and driver. There is so much involved in getting your team's car across the line these days in real racing. It is not mainly about the machine at all. In F1 we see the pinnacle of racing (and even aerospace) technology, but still there are great differences between drivers and other people important to the drivers. A race is conducted across several days and can be won or lost at any point therein. It is too complex for many to enjoy, but to paint F1 as a simple case of "the fastest car wins" is really wrong. Using Nascar as a comparitive example only lessens the credibilty of the argument since it has nothing in common with F1 at all and is so far apart from F1 as to be considered incomaparable. I agree that if you apply F1 conditions to oval racing it would be even more boring (hard to imagine, I know) than it already is but F1 has variety built in to the racing where Nascar has no variety at all. Perhaps oval racing needs a push to pass button to prevent the drivers from dozing off? Then again, causing half the field to erupt into a blazing ball of flame seems to be a real crowd pleaser for many Nascar fans.
:tup:
Great set of posts.
Montoya past Schumacher last year at Spa still remains in my mind one of the best passes I've seen in a long time. If he did it with "push to pass", he would have done it on a straight, or somewhere similarly boring.
PtP's origins were in keeping with traditions of racing. Back when CART(ChampCar) had multiple engine suppliers who were allowed a measure of inventiveness, Honda(i think) came up with a button that allowed the engine to run at maximum allowed turbo boost for as long as the button was pushed. Once let go, the boost would return to a more conservative level set by each team to make sure their engines lasted the distance. There were no limits of any kind imposed on use of the button. The strategy was to make sure not to blow up the engine by running it too hard for too long. The engines in those days were, like F1, run on the verge of detonation and teams and engine manufacturers pushed that envelope as hard as they dared in order to go faster.
Now with restrictions much tighter and spec engines owned by the series itself and rev-limited, Champ Car turned PtP into a gimmick by slapping a time limit on it and wiring it up to the pop-off valve to simply move from one series-mandated limit to another.
Under the old way, PtP was an innovation used by teams to push engines even closer to the breaking point in the search for extra temporary power when needed. But this way is just a gimmick to create a better "show".
Now with restrictions much tighter and spec engines owned by the series itself and rev-limited, Champ Car turned PtP into a gimmick by slapping a time limit on it and wiring it up to the pop-off valve to simply move from one series-mandated limit to another.
Under the old way, PtP was an innovation used by teams to push engines even closer to the breaking point in the search for extra temporary power when needed. But this way is just a gimmick to create a better "show".
This might be an old thread but I just read it all and wanted to point something out. I do believe (I am very aware that I could be horrible wrong here. but I think my point will still stand) that the Fox has a loose basis on Formula3000, renault, Ford and possible Formula 3. I am fairly sure that at least two of those series have P2P buttons. The rules I am not sure of, but they do exist in competative racing. So surely if LFS is the simulator it claims to be then the inclusion of a P2P button on at least one series car is only realistic! REgardless whether peeps find them uselss, annoying, pointless or misplaced. They are in Real Life, so therefore they should be simulated . . .
Savvy? . . .
P.S. It ain't NOS. NOS comes in a cylinder, has the capabilty of blowing your engine to bits and makes you laugh lots if you breath it in. P2P is a engine management system governed by the rules of the race series, or a small handheld device made by Sony.
P.P.S I like the Laser beam idea. Could we have sharks in cars with Laser beams?
Savvy? . . .
P.S. It ain't NOS. NOS comes in a cylinder, has the capabilty of blowing your engine to bits and makes you laugh lots if you breath it in. P2P is a engine management system governed by the rules of the race series, or a small handheld device made by Sony.
P.P.S I like the Laser beam idea. Could we have sharks in cars with Laser beams?
the "small handheld device by Sony"'s name is PSP not p2p :P
and NOS wont make u laugh if u breath it in..
:P
Yes it will - Nitrous Oxide is laughing gas, and is also used in childbirth to ease the pain.
:hidesbehi
it smells funny too.. i remember smelling it when i got my wisdom teeth out last christmas.. smelled really .. weird cant really describe it, but it most certainly wasnt the most pleasant smell (reminded me of the smells in like.. kindergarden classes)
None of them have P2P, I am only aware of Palmer Audi using this system.
My first ever trip was on nitrous at the dentists, when I was about six or seven. Everything looked like it was swamped in crap digital effects from really bad '80s music videos. I also once stood in playing bass for a band whose bassist had overdosed on nitrous at a party. Don't do nitrous, kids!
In my view we do not need newer, wider tracks, with nice corners, little elevation change, slightly cambered corners, that are extremely smooth with a sea of tarmac run off area. These tracks are frankly dull and boring and provide good races in nothing short of very big high powered ground effect cars. The current F1 cars/big single seaters are absolutley enormous, I know a lot of the reason they are so big is because the FIA has decided that any possible risk of injury must be irradicated.
I'm not saying that new tracks should be built more dangerously than they need to be, or trying to say that new devices like HANS are bad, just that safety is now effecting to much of the car and track design, if you could have a politically correct motor racing circuit it certainly wouldn't be Spa or the Nurburgring but who cares? they are what they are partly through the immense challenge and ridiculous levels of danger they through at you. Todays F1 drivers are more likely to injure themselves falling down the stairs than racing there cars, even if they manage to find something to hit amongst the sea of tarmac.
Back on topic, I would normally be opposed to a system like push to pass, but if it really could help then maybe it's worth a try. As for all those complaining about motorsport being all about cars, it is
, the driver is only a (rather important) part of a racing car. The level of control the FIA has over F1 design is stupid, why can it not learn that producing what is almost the worst possible case of a one make formula, the team with the most money/expertise is always going to do best, if you allowed for radical innovation then one team could suddenly leap ahead of those on bigger budgets.
The last thing I'd say is single seater racing must never turn into what WRC teams did complaing about the Safari, great tracks like Spa must stay in the calendar, they may be narrow and bumpy with run off areas that actually lead to barriers, but the cars must be adapted to the track, not the track to the cars. If Stefan Belof managed a 956 round the ring 20 years ago then there's really no excuse why ground effects cars can't go over bumps now.
I'm not saying that new tracks should be built more dangerously than they need to be, or trying to say that new devices like HANS are bad, just that safety is now effecting to much of the car and track design, if you could have a politically correct motor racing circuit it certainly wouldn't be Spa or the Nurburgring but who cares? they are what they are partly through the immense challenge and ridiculous levels of danger they through at you. Todays F1 drivers are more likely to injure themselves falling down the stairs than racing there cars, even if they manage to find something to hit amongst the sea of tarmac.
Back on topic, I would normally be opposed to a system like push to pass, but if it really could help then maybe it's worth a try. As for all those complaining about motorsport being all about cars, it is
, the driver is only a (rather important) part of a racing car. The level of control the FIA has over F1 design is stupid, why can it not learn that producing what is almost the worst possible case of a one make formula, the team with the most money/expertise is always going to do best, if you allowed for radical innovation then one team could suddenly leap ahead of those on bigger budgets.The last thing I'd say is single seater racing must never turn into what WRC teams did complaing about the Safari, great tracks like Spa must stay in the calendar, they may be narrow and bumpy with run off areas that actually lead to barriers, but the cars must be adapted to the track, not the track to the cars. If Stefan Belof managed a 956 round the ring 20 years ago then there's really no excuse why ground effects cars can't go over bumps now.
amen.
First of all, nice statements, second, why is "racing" in general so interessting?
To give you a hint, it's about excitement of the AUDIENCE cause the audience pays for it.
racing is pretty much like a circus where clowns and dompteurs show off.
so if the race is predictable, (Wich it is at the moment) then it's "not amusing" like the brits say.
And think a moment about it, right now theres to little coincidence or chance for any racer to win IF and ONLY if others make mistakes (in short races) cause several influences just don't apply.
So why not make it more interessting? and more restricted like powerboost yes, but only if you accept another 2 mins normal-mode.
then 1 powerboost again.
And talking about purism, why was the turbo used in the first place?
(huh get it?)
I can understand why the tbo was removed from Formel cars, cause there way to powerfull for the driver-safety at this time or present time.
i guess one day we'll see completely automated race(r)s....
(thisnameistaken)
DELETED
by thisnameistaken
Well in that case it's the problem of the "hot heads" but if it's a narrow track like SO then a boost once in a while can keep you in business or off track.
thats why i was insisting on the restriction of that boost.
However it's your responsibility to use it wisely and not for some unnecessary action that won't help our the opposite car.
@thisnameismistaken;
you only have a short amount of time that you are allowed to use it, its not like something you hold down and go that fast for..ever
plus, where does anyone have a place to pass in say.. south city unnoficial (2? the short one).. you dont, and with push to pass, you could overtake .. whenever you have a chance to, otherwise your just following the whole time, thats what push to pass was made for; the short tracks where you cant get fast enough to pass anywhere
also, take this into concideration; if this is 'pointless' in your terms, then why dont we get rid of the whole pit settings so no one can get an advantage, but instead everyone has to get the same amount of gas and the same amount of tires etc. push to pass is like pitting tactics.. its just another way to try to keep on top of the game
you only have a short amount of time that you are allowed to use it, its not like something you hold down and go that fast for..ever
plus, where does anyone have a place to pass in say.. south city unnoficial (2? the short one).. you dont, and with push to pass, you could overtake .. whenever you have a chance to, otherwise your just following the whole time, thats what push to pass was made for; the short tracks where you cant get fast enough to pass anywhere
also, take this into concideration; if this is 'pointless' in your terms, then why dont we get rid of the whole pit settings so no one can get an advantage, but instead everyone has to get the same amount of gas and the same amount of tires etc. push to pass is like pitting tactics.. its just another way to try to keep on top of the game
Please we do not need push to pass, it's a load of bollocks, quite frankly I'd rather watch a boring F1 race with the odd stunning pass, like Alonsos? pass round Schumy on the outside of the 130R :yikes:
In LFS there's more than enough passing in the single seaters, I know it seems awful to say but I would actually like to see a better simulation of dirty air (donning flame proof suit) even if it reduces the passing. In LFS atm there actually is even passing in the FOX in corners, just like in real small single seaters, I'm not fast but there are still the odd race I have battling wheel to wheel for 5 laps for a mid-field spot, constantly overtaking sometimes through others making mistakes (as in slightly wide, not in the gravel), but that's how 80% of racing passes happen, 10% are barged off the road by arrogant twats and 10% are total magic going off line to pass
In LFS there's more than enough passing in the single seaters, I know it seems awful to say but I would actually like to see a better simulation of dirty air (donning flame proof suit) even if it reduces the passing. In LFS atm there actually is even passing in the FOX in corners, just like in real small single seaters, I'm not fast but there are still the odd race I have battling wheel to wheel for 5 laps for a mid-field spot, constantly overtaking sometimes through others making mistakes (as in slightly wide, not in the gravel), but that's how 80% of racing passes happen, 10% are barged off the road by arrogant twats and 10% are total magic going off line to pass
(thisnameistaken)
DELETED
by thisnameistaken
well let me just say something about what you just said; you yourself:
doesnt that just make the setting a bit more dramatic? its not really any type of advantage since everyone has it at their fingertips; but its when you use it, if you use all your time and have none.. what about someone in the rear that hasnt used it at all, he can get some passes in
..and.. i cant think of where to go from that lol
doesnt that just make the setting a bit more dramatic? its not really any type of advantage since everyone has it at their fingertips; but its when you use it, if you use all your time and have none.. what about someone in the rear that hasnt used it at all, he can get some passes in
..and.. i cant think of where to go from that lol
IMO racing is about racing, not a spectator spectacle. We need not put on a show for tv or we are not dumb rich millionares who need a boost button to be able to make their package car go faster. Fact is single seaters rarely overtake IRL, so why should that be any different in LFS. If you want constant overtaking play TRD/GT/NFS if you want a realistic simulation of big single seaters you ain't going to make many passes. Even in touring cars street circuits do not have much passing.
all open weelers F1, indy, A1 grandprix, F3000, Formula nippon have this option call it what u will boost turbo boost, its an integral part, also F1 and such have mixture setting which determin amount of fuel going into engine and power output
very real , and would be good addition and would also increase pit stop strategy and whatnot
very real , and would be good addition and would also increase pit stop strategy and whatnot
he actually would of used mix 5 which is rich setting to give him some more power in that pass, or over rev button to hold the gear longer
Seinfeld using a push to pass system creates an artificial way to get the extra boost to pass someone. In F1 it's all about endurance so engines are turned down as to conserve them but when needed they can change the mixture and up the revs to aid their challenge. You can't compare a push to pass system to changing the mixture. It doesn't make sense to compare the two 
I agree the spectator spetacle isn't really important in motor racing. If F1 lost all it's spectators it would still continue just not on the scale it does now because of the lack of funding from sponsors.
Keiran
I agree the spectator spetacle isn't really important in motor racing. If F1 lost all it's spectators it would still continue just not on the scale it does now because of the lack of funding from sponsors.
Keiran
No Alonso's pass was nothing to do with a rev limiter release button or this magical turbo boost a 3 litre naturally aspirated V10 has, it was the brilliance and bravery of keeping going flat round the outside on one of the most daunting corners in the world, which most people were lifting for even on the racing line.
As for this F1/F3000 having a turbo boost/fuel mapping change button it's bollocks, they do not end of story. As for the other formulae, they may well do but they are just the latest crop of Playstation era single seaters. Built for TV and not reflecting the true values of racing which is what LFS should follow IMO.
Some people may say they want F1 cars, I don't I'd rather have Group C cars, although Redline have already filled that void. I don't think LFS could do historics well because of a. the physics (just wouldn't suit IMO) and b. it just wouldn't be right if they weren't real cars.
If you really want to watch identical cars and identical drivers driving identical races on identical characterless tracks in the Middle East then the Bernie/Flavio mixture with all the single make series under the sun then this latest crop of TV formulae are for you.
If you want real excitment and variety of grids then historics are for you. Look back 20 years ago and you didn't have to be told the race was exciting because driver X had passed driver A with his NOS/turbo boost/warp drive button. Group C cars were thrilling as they really were fast beyond belief in a straight line (and still had full ground effects). I've never had to watch a live F1 race, seen a few demonstration laps and all I can say is it's nothing thrilling when you compare it to the TGP practice session or even the odd historic F1 car I've seen testing at Mallory. Unfortunatley I've never seen a grid of Group C cars in action, just a few C2 cars.
As for this F1/F3000 having a turbo boost/fuel mapping change button it's bollocks, they do not end of story. As for the other formulae, they may well do but they are just the latest crop of Playstation era single seaters. Built for TV and not reflecting the true values of racing which is what LFS should follow IMO.
Some people may say they want F1 cars, I don't I'd rather have Group C cars, although Redline have already filled that void. I don't think LFS could do historics well because of a. the physics (just wouldn't suit IMO) and b. it just wouldn't be right if they weren't real cars.
If you really want to watch identical cars and identical drivers driving identical races on identical characterless tracks in the Middle East then the Bernie/Flavio mixture with all the single make series under the sun then this latest crop of TV formulae are for you.
If you want real excitment and variety of grids then historics are for you. Look back 20 years ago and you didn't have to be told the race was exciting because driver X had passed driver A with his NOS/turbo boost/warp drive button. Group C cars were thrilling as they really were fast beyond belief in a straight line (and still had full ground effects). I've never had to watch a live F1 race, seen a few demonstration laps and all I can say is it's nothing thrilling when you compare it to the TGP practice session or even the odd historic F1 car I've seen testing at Mallory. Unfortunatley I've never seen a grid of Group C cars in action, just a few C2 cars.
LOL
Actually they do....
If you listen to team radio they often ask the driver the change the engine map A B C or D, I don't know the specifics of what this actually does, but it definetley changes the rev limit....
It's all about making those engine's last!
I think all the F1 teams have controls on the wheel for fuel mapping now, with a range something like 1 to 8, where 1 might be leanest (but still with an AFR less that stoichiometric) and 8 will be richest at around AFR=13.5.
The difference in power will be quite small, and the difference in fuel consumption will be tiny too and tend to add up over a large distance.
Thus fuel mapping in LFS with mostly short races and less powerful cars will be pointless. 2% difference in power or fuel consumption won't be noticable. As for push to pass, we are not in the position real life is in having to artificially spice up the racing. Just because it's in real life doesn't mean it's there for the right reasons nor in keeping with LFS.
The difference in power will be quite small, and the difference in fuel consumption will be tiny too and tend to add up over a large distance.
Thus fuel mapping in LFS with mostly short races and less powerful cars will be pointless. 2% difference in power or fuel consumption won't be noticable. As for push to pass, we are not in the position real life is in having to artificially spice up the racing. Just because it's in real life doesn't mean it's there for the right reasons nor in keeping with LFS.
"Push to pass"
(135 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG