LOTUS - GPL

I've been systematically going through each track since I bought GPL. First I drove the Cooper using Alisson's setups. Went through all the tracks, then, using Alisson's Honda setups I went through all the tracks driving the Honda, still driving the Cooper, as well, doing a race in each. Then, this last time through the tracks, I drove the Lotus. The thing was, with the Lotus I was doing better times within a couple of laps than I was in the Cooper and the Honda, even though, as you can imagine, my control over the Lotus was a lot less than with the other two cars. Anyone who has driven these three cars knows the difference. The question is, if I was able to go faster in the Lotus even though I had relatively little control over it, did the Lotus in 1967 have that much of an advantage over its rivals? I haven't bothered to look at the race results from that year, but if it did have that much advantage it must have been unbeatable. No wonder so many drivers choose to drive the Lotus on VROC. roy

The Lotus would be unbeatable, but it was beaten by the Brabham through the Brabham's endurance. The Lotus is a very easy car o break the engine on, do that over 70 laps and frequent DNF's (Hill's season was filled with DNF after DNF). The Brabham on the other hand just trudged along as second fastest, but when the top 2 fall out a lot they become the top car. That's how Brabham won the constructor's and was 1-2 in Drivers.

Quoted text (16 lines)

> I've been systematically going through each track since I bought GPL. > First I drove the Cooper using Alisson's setups. Went through all the > tracks, then, using Alisson's Honda setups I went through all the tracks > driving the Honda, still driving the Cooper, as well, doing a race in > each. Then, this last time through the tracks, I drove the Lotus. The > thing was, with the Lotus I was doing better times within a couple of > laps than I was in the Cooper and the Honda, even though, as you can > imagine, my control over the Lotus was a lot less than with the other > two cars. Anyone who has driven these three cars knows the difference. > The question is, if I was able to go faster in the Lotus even though I > had relatively little control over it, did the Lotus in 1967 have that > much of an advantage over its rivals? I haven't bothered to look at the > race results from that year, but if it did have that much advantage it > must have been unbeatable. > No wonder so many drivers choose to drive the Lotus on VROC. > roy

-- Jon Van Ginneken "I wrestled with an alligator, tussled with a whale, handcuffed lightning, threw thunder in jail...I'm a bad dude." - Muhammad Ali

Main reason is, it's the only car u can get any setups for off the net........ chip

Quoted text (16 lines)

>I've been systematically going through each track since I bought GPL. >First I drove the Cooper using Alisson's setups. Went through all the >tracks, then, using Alisson's Honda setups I went through all the tracks >driving the Honda, still driving the Cooper, as well, doing a race in >each. Then, this last time through the tracks, I drove the Lotus. The >thing was, with the Lotus I was doing better times within a couple of >laps than I was in the Cooper and the Honda, even though, as you can >imagine, my control over the Lotus was a lot less than with the other >two cars. Anyone who has driven these three cars knows the difference. >The question is, if I was able to go faster in the Lotus even though I >had relatively little control over it, did the Lotus in 1967 have that >much of an advantage over its rivals? I haven't bothered to look at the >race results from that year, but if it did have that much advantage it >must have been unbeatable. >No wonder so many drivers choose to drive the Lotus on VROC. >roy

I would like someone to post some setups that they use for racing, as opposed to setups for hotlaps. And, even better, setups from someone NOT using a split-axis controller (I'm guessing it makes a difference) For a couple of months I bumbled about way off the pace. Then I started using the Coventry with Alison's setups, and was able to lap consistently at last. Then I followed someone's suggestion (on this forum) of copying Alison's Coventry setups for use with the Lotus. I did so, and immediately gained 2-4 seconds on all the circuits I race - Spa, Zandvoort, and Monza mainly, plus Silverstone, Kyalami, and Mexico a bit. (I would love to drive a less fashionable car than the Lotus - but at my skill level I just cannot afford the drop in speed with other cars. When I race online I am always very grateful to those very fast drivers who drive cars other than the Lotus to bring themselves back to the field - thanks guys.) I can now beat the AI at 100% on novice race at Monza! - a major achievement for me! I've done 2 or 3 laps of 1.29.30, but can lap consistently at 1.30-1.32. That's where I've been stuck for a few days now. I've tried other people's setups, but find them undriveable - I cannot seem to avoid spinning under brakes. I'm trying to work out just what it is about Alison's setups that helps me - from what I've read the fact it "understeers" is what helps beginners such as myself, but I'm not quite sure how to change that to a more conventional (faster?) setup gradually. As always, plenty to work on with GPL. What a superb piece of programming it is! Cheers Alan (aka Spenser)

I know, because I've read a book :o) The Lotus team had struggled through 1966, the previous season to GPL. However in march 1967, Colin Chapman of the Lotus Team and a legend in his own right, managed to get hold of the all new Cosworth DFV - an engine funded by Ford and built to an all new V8 design. When they were on the track Lotus were unbeatable (with Hill & Clark) but unfortunatly it wasn't their season for reliability and mechanical failure after mechanical failure ensured a joint 6th championship placement for Hill and a 3rd in the championship for Jim Clark. For the constructors cup, Lotus still managed a 2nd with 50 points... 17 behined the Brabhams of Denny Hulme and Jack Brabham. Best 9 scores from the 11 races counted... Cya, Rob - still think they were just a bunch of rich guys :o)

Try using Alison's Cooper setups on the Lotus. They're not that far off for some of the tracks. I've found they work well at Monza, Spa, and Silverstone. I took six seconds off my best Spa time inside of 30 minutes. The thing that gets me about the Lotus is that many people say it is a very "nervous" car. Personally, I feel that the Lotus brings out the good OR the bad its setup. One thing I have noticed since I've started driving the Lotus is that it it gives very little warning of impending doom. You'll be comfortably going through a turn, then *BANG* it's gone. Again though, that may just be the nature of the setups I'm using. -Bill -- Bill Mette | "A person is smart. People are dumb." MCSNet, Chicago | - K MiB

Since we're digging up some Lotus history in this thread, I've got a question. I'm presently reading Pete Lyons' "Can-Am" book. (Great book BTW.) In it he states: "As with so many automotive advances, the use of the engine as a stressed frame member was established in racing by Lotus founder Colin Chapman. He did not originate the basic principle, but his elegant employment of it on the Formula One Lotus-Ford 49 was eye opening and convincing." So, is Pete mistaken, or was the 49 the only '67 GP car with full monocoque contruction? I thought that by 1967 a fully monocoque chassis would have been obligatory. -Bill -- Bill Mette | "A person is smart. People are dumb." MCSNet, Chicago | - K MiB

Not true - Alison Hine has setups for loads of cars, there are some hotlap sites with corresponding setups and Jason Monds has some very good setups for the Eagle and the Ferrari and another car. Paul

Quoted text (23 lines)

> Main reason is, it's the only car u can get any setups for off the > net........ > chip > >I've been systematically going through each track since I bought GPL. > >First I drove the Cooper using Alisson's setups. Went through all the > >tracks, then, using Alisson's Honda setups I went through all the tracks > >driving the Honda, still driving the Cooper, as well, doing a race in > >each. Then, this last time through the tracks, I drove the Lotus. The > >thing was, with the Lotus I was doing better times within a couple of > >laps than I was in the Cooper and the Honda, even though, as you can > >imagine, my control over the Lotus was a lot less than with the other > >two cars. Anyone who has driven these three cars knows the difference. > >The question is, if I was able to go faster in the Lotus even though I > >had relatively little control over it, did the Lotus in 1967 have that > >much of an advantage over its rivals? I haven't bothered to look at the > >race results from that year, but if it did have that much advantage it > >must have been unbeatable. > >No wonder so many drivers choose to drive the Lotus on VROC. > >roy

> No wonder so many drivers choose to drive the Lotus on VROC. Yes, the VROC grids are b*** with Lotuses (Lotii?), but I would say that the other cars get a podium showing in proportion to their number on the grid. I'm a slowish driver but I have often got in the top three by carefully driving around wrecked Lotuses, Paul

If you think there's nobody with their bum in a race car (F1 included) today because Daddy's got money, you haven't been paying attention. Peter Holt

The use of the engine as a stressed frame member is not related to whether monocoque construction is used. You can use the a tubular frame and still use the engine as a stressed member. For instance, many motorcycles use the engine as part of the frame but they're not monocoque. I don't know for sure whether the 49 had a tubular frame but I know the Brabham BT24 did at least.

Quoted text (17 lines)

> Since we're digging up some Lotus history in this thread, I've got a > question. I'm presently reading Pete Lyons' "Can-Am" book. (Great book > BTW.) In it he states: > "As with so many automotive advances, the use of the engine as a stressed > frame member was established in racing by Lotus founder Colin Chapman. He > did not originate the basic principle, but his elegant employment of it on > the Formula One Lotus-Ford 49 was eye opening and convincing." > So, is Pete mistaken, or was the 49 the only '67 GP car with full > monocoque contruction? I thought that by 1967 a fully monocoque chassis > would have been obligatory. > -Bill > -- > Bill Mette | "A person is smart. People are dumb." > MCSNet, Chicago | - K MiB

No, all cars except the Brabham used a monocoque design in 67, but only the Lotus used the engine as a stressed part of the chassis. The two are not the same. However the first F1 car to use the engine as a stressed part of the chassis was not the Lotus, but the Lancia D50 of 54-55 (the Lancia had a tubular frame BTW). It was also the first car to put the fuel near the center of gravity so that charcetristics wouldn't change as much with fuel load (the other cars had the fuel in the tail). Unfortunatly when Ferrari bought Lancia in 56, they undid all of these novel features to make it a more conventional car. -- Arne Martin Hanssen Oslo, Norway

Quoted text (17 lines)

> Try using Alison's Cooper setups on the Lotus. They're not that far > off > for some of the tracks. I've found they work well at Monza, Spa, and > Silverstone. I took six seconds off my best Spa time inside of 30 > minutes. > The thing that gets me about the Lotus is that many people say it is > a > very "nervous" car. Personally, I feel that the Lotus brings out the > good > OR the bad its setup. One thing I have noticed since I've started > driving > the Lotus is that it it gives very little warning of impending doom. > You'll be comfortably going through a turn, then *BANG* it's gone. > Again > though, that may just be the nature of the setups I'm using. > -Bill

Well, I don't totally agree :)The Lotus *is* tough to drive; it has loads of understeer that needs to be brought around by heavy lumps of throttle, and the engine is'nt what I'd call progressive. Certainly, my fastest laps after Hours Of Practice, have been in the Lotus - but - thanks to the late PRC IROC races, I was forced to try other cars - with default setups. Whenever I race the Lotus, I always keep some in reserve, but the Brabham and Coopers can be thrown at every turn 110% every lap for ages without biting you back! An example would be Zandvoort, where my best Lotus lap is a 1.25.5, but getting low 26s constantly in a race is hard (or so I think). Whenever I feel like it, I can bring out the Brabham, and do low 26s/high 25s all day long! As for chassis, the Repco is a driver's dream! If that old pushrod bucket only could give us another 50 HP....: ) Matt Knutsen

Big Homer Simpson "DOH!" on my part. I've known that fact for years, but for some reason it didn't spew forth from my brain when I was writing my message. Amazing what a lack of sleep can do. -Bill -- Bill Mette | "A person is smart. People are dumb." MCSNet, Chicago | - K MiB

% > No wonder so many drivers choose to drive the Lotus on VROC. % > % Yes, the VROC grids are b*** with Lotuses (Lotii?), but I would say that % the other cars get a podium showing in proportion to their number on the % grid. I'm a slowish driver but I have often got in the top three by % carefully driving around wrecked Lotuses, Same here. I think that due to the lack of sheer speed in the other marques, it has taken some of us (notice "some") a little bit longer to get some consistent speed out of them. Last night in a race at Monza, I qualified 2nd on my Eagle, with you guessed it, a Lotus in 1st. The Lotus got off ahead of me, and I was in close pursuit, when another Eagle (in 3rd) thought they needed to make a charge on the 1st lap as we head into the Lesmos. So as not to crash, I had to let up, allowing them the inside line (only for them to go in too deep and slide along the outside Armco), allowing the Lotus to pull off in the distance. By the first report from the pits, I was 2 seconds behind the Lotus. After about 4 laps, the reports where still 2 seconds gap, but I knew I was gaining, as I was ever closer each time we entered the Lesmos. The poor Lotus driver feeling that an Eagle was swooping in for the kill (actually I doubt that I had enough laps in the "short" race to chase him down and make the pass), pressed too hard going into the Parabolica. You guessed it, off into the sand. Off into the lead with still 1/2 of the race left. I pushed the Eagle for a couple of quick race laps (high 1:29's and low 1:30's) until my pit board showed a safe 5+ second gap between me and the pursuing Lotus. Time to ease off and preserve my lead. This allowed the Lotus to come within 2 seconds, so it was time again to start putting in the 1:29's and low 1:30's. However, the smell of my Eagle exhaust must have raised the adrenalin of the Lotus driver, as he once again went wide in the Parabolica. Once again, victory to steady and sure, and not necessarily the fast and sloppy. With all that said, I am rather disheartened by the many times I have passed a hot-flying Lotus during one of their off course maneuvers, only to have the flying beast chase me down and pass me again (sometimes as may as 3-4 times a race). The car is damn fast (and so are some of the Lotus drivers -- which is why they chose the Lotus)! But in a real racing world (no Shift-R's and real damage), these drivers would never finish a race, let alone win one. Yeh, I know, run Pro races instead. While they are fine with a "known" group of racers, they are *** in pickup races. The majority of the time I have been taken out, in the 1st couple of laps, by "drunken" pilots, who never had a chance to begin with. That's after spending 20-30 minutes in practice achieving a decent grid position. That's alot of time to invest only to be taken out by some wild kamikaze samurai from Saturday Night Live! <G> [letting my age show] Hope to see ya on the track... -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Hi Alan, > I would like someone to post some setups that they use for racing, as > opposed to setups for hotlaps. And, even better, setups from someone > NOT using a split-axis controller (I'm guessing it makes a difference) Check out my page [link lost in import] I use a regular T2 with combined gas/brake. Just drive them like you drove in your parent cars when you were 16 ;) IE: Trail braking is not required, just keep the car balanced an smooooth. I put the brake bias back (quite a bit) to brake faster because I don't lock up the fronts; however, just move the bias forward say 55 or more if you are spinning under braking. My Eagle setup at Silverstone will spin easily under braking (but I use it for racing). Just do your braking in a straight line. Correct, an understeering car is easier to drive but to go faster you need to trail-brake (to get the rear to come around) or adjust the balance for more front grip -- like my setups. Try my Murasama / Monza setup. It is quite easy to drive and quick :) You said it! -- -------- Jason Monds "My other car is a Ferrari" http://members.home.net/gpl.mondsj/gpl (Please remove 'no extra spork' when replying)

Just think how fast you would be in the Lotus if you drove it the way you drive the Eagle. I HAve doen a little online IP racing, and found that most guys are still taking a hotlap approach trying to win every lap instead of winning the race. I try to run a consistant race thru out and that usually is the reason for winning, whether or not I am driving a Lotus or a Cooper. I would love to run ya tho since it sounds like we would have a very good race on our hands. I just need to get a better PC to run some heavy Grid VROC races. Dave Robinson

On Mon, 04 Jan 1999 16:12:08 GMT, "Michael E. Carver"

Quoted text (8 lines)

>I pushed the Eagle for a couple of quick race laps (high 1:29's and low >1:30's) until my pit board showed a safe 5+ second gap between me and >the pursuing Lotus. Time to ease off and preserve my lead. This allowed >the Lotus to come within 2 seconds, so it was time again to start putting >in the 1:29's and low 1:30's. However, the smell of my Eagle exhaust >must have raised the adrenalin of the Lotus driver, as he once again went >wide in the Parabolica. Once again, victory to steady and sure, and not >necessarily the fast and sloppy.

It really depends WHO you're up against. I am by no means the top GPL driver, but most of the times get 1:28.5-1:28.9 laps on Monza, with low 1:29s turning up after some small mistakes (clipping the armco, going too deep into corners etc.). I had a good race yesterday with Al Scott. After me getting pole with 1:28.4 and jumping to a good start, he was sitting on my tail for the entire race. He even did 1:28.5 to grab a best lap. But...both drivers (myself and him) drove almost perfectly and made almost no mistakes. After 11 laps we crossed the line 0.4 sec apart. Let me tell you, this replay is hot! :) You if you like winning against opponents who spin and drive off the track every other lap, thats fine. But I personally enjoy races where big mistakes are SURE to cost you a win. And in those races, you have to be one of the best drivers in GPL community to win in a car other than Eagle or Lotus. About Eagles - they are really not that much handicapped compared to Lotuses. I have a replay from Monza (Lotus track, they say), where Chris Cavin spins and then goes to put on a really good show - mid 1:28.5 laps with the best being 1:28.1 ! He had to slow down considerably in ascrai to avoid hitting me, if the track was clear he could have done a 1:27.8 on that lap. So yes, it is possible to beat Lotuses without waiting for them to drop out or spin. Takes some practice though. Why not? I think you get a distorted idea about this due to the number of people driving Lotuses. Most of them would not finish in any other car. And those really fast could just slow down a bit and be really safe. 1:29.0 at Monza or 3:21 at Spa allow for a very safe race, and you will win against most opponents. Well... that's why it pays to be in the front row :) But I agree - everybody wants to have the best possible start, while it really doesnt matter that much if you're in the middle of the grid. You will pass people who are slower and will get passed by faster drivers. Some tracks in novice mode are an exception, but I find it true in general...

Not on topic but ... I remember in a motor rebuilding class we placed an internal micrometer transversly across the top of an empty engine cylinder - ie pistons out and head off. The micrometer was adjusted so it was only just tight enough to support its own weight. We then put one hand at each end of the engine block and squeesed. We found that with just our bare strength we could deform the cylinder block enough for the micrometer to drop. Of course when the head is bolted on the block would be more rigid. But even so I was suprised at how much give there is in what seems to be such a solid item. These were cast iron engines I'm talking about. I assume that an alloy engine block is even more deformable with stress, though I haven't tried the same trick with one. I wonder therefore just how much give is in the engine block when used as a stressed member. However much there is it is no doubt taken into account. Just wondering. Phillip McNelley

Quoted text (23 lines)

> >"As with so many automotive advances, the use of the engine as a > stressed > >frame member was established in racing by Lotus founder Colin > Chapman. He > >did not originate the basic principle, but his elegant employment of > it on > >the Formula One Lotus-Ford 49 was eye opening and convincing." > Not on topic but ... > I remember in a motor rebuilding class we placed an internal > micrometer transversly across the top of an empty engine cylinder - ie > pistons out and head off. The micrometer was adjusted so it was only > just tight enough to support its own weight. We then put one hand at > each end of the engine block and squeesed. We found that with just our > bare strength we could deform the cylinder block enough for the > micrometer to drop. > Of course when the head is bolted on the block would be more rigid. > But even so I was suprised at how much give there is in what seems to > be such a solid item. These were cast iron engines I'm talking about.

Very true indeed! Have you ever seen a racecar get punished on a rolling road?It's just amazing to see what movement there is when it's screaming against the rollers at 9000 RPM.. Well, I take it the engine block in question was from a road car. Race-specific engines are designed to take that punishment, of course, but there are certain exceptions; one being the Sierra Cosworth unit, which got a reputation as a "chocolate block", the RS 500 engine block had a really short life-cycle in GPA Touring cars. But to the point; I have also been spoked by looking at the Cosworth DFV-derived engines; at a F3000 Car I've spent too many hours on, the engine is mounted to the monocoque with two small alloy plates on top front of each cyl. head, two 7/16" bolts to the engine, One to the chassis, and there's a stiffening bar at the bottom of the crankcase. Even more scary; on F-16s, which I've also done my best to keep in the air, an extra fuel pod is mounted below the fuselage, taking 1500 litres of fuel, and it is bolted with 4 1/2" bolts!!! Imagine the stress on tose bolts when the pilot does a 7G-turn... Interesting topic! Cheers, Matt Knutsen

Yes, it was that good in 1967. As shown by the fact that it was still winning races in 1970, before it was superseded by the equally successful Lotus 72, which pioneered the wedge-shaped, side radiator layout, still the basis of modern open-wheelers. James

Quoted text (16 lines)

>I've been systematically going through each track since I bought GPL. >First I drove the Cooper using Alisson's setups. Went through all the >tracks, then, using Alisson's Honda setups I went through all the tracks >driving the Honda, still driving the Cooper, as well, doing a race in >each. Then, this last time through the tracks, I drove the Lotus. The >thing was, with the Lotus I was doing better times within a couple of >laps than I was in the Cooper and the Honda, even though, as you can >imagine, my control over the Lotus was a lot less than with the other >two cars. Anyone who has driven these three cars knows the difference. >The question is, if I was able to go faster in the Lotus even though I >had relatively little control over it, did the Lotus in 1967 have that >much of an advantage over its rivals? I haven't bothered to look at the >race results from that year, but if it did have that much advantage it >must have been unbeatable. >No wonder so many drivers choose to drive the Lotus on VROC. >roy

>I can now beat the AI at 100% on novice race at Monza! - a major >achievement for me! I've done 2 or 3 laps of 1.29.30, but can lap >consistently at 1.30-1.32. That made me feel better. I'll download the setups now...<g> I give up on the default Eagle. I can't get past 1:33 something. I don't remember, I had to reload GPL.. :( __ Put your message in a modem, and throw it in the ***-sea... remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

% On Mon, 04 Jan 1999 16:12:08 GMT, "Michael E. Carver" % >I pushed the Eagle for a couple of quick race laps (high 1:29's and low % >1:30's) until my pit board showed a safe 5+ second gap between me and % >the pursuing Lotus. Time to ease off and preserve my lead. This allowed % >the Lotus to come within 2 seconds, so it was time again to start putting % >in the 1:29's and low 1:30's. However, the smell of my Eagle exhaust % >must have raised the adrenalin of the Lotus driver, as he once again went % >wide in the Parabolica. Once again, victory to steady and sure, and not % >necessarily the fast and sloppy. % It really depends WHO you're up against. I am by no means the top GPL % driver, but most of the times get 1:28.5-1:28.9 laps on Monza, with % low 1:29s turning up after some small mistakes (clipping the armco, % going too deep into corners etc.). I had a good race yesterday with Al % Scott. After me getting pole with 1:28.4 and jumping to a good start, % he was sitting on my tail for the entire race. He even did 1:28.5 to % grab a best lap. But...both drivers (myself and him) drove almost % perfectly and made almost no mistakes. After 11 laps we crossed the % line 0.4 sec apart. Let me tell you, this replay is hot! :) % You if you like winning against opponents who spin and drive off the % track every other lap, thats fine. But I personally enjoy races where % big mistakes are SURE to cost you a win. And in those races, you have % to be one of the best drivers in GPL community to win in a car other % than Eagle or Lotus. I think you are surely mistakening me for someone else. I did not intend in my post to indicate that I "like winning against opponents who spin and drive off the track every other lap". All I was trying to illustrate was that many of the "fast" racers out there, aren't really fast racers, but fast hot-lappers. The point is to go out on the track and push one's abilities to the ragged edge only when required (and certainly don't push it over the edge) and run one's own race. Stop worrying about the Lotus glut and learn to driver the car of your choice to the best of one's abilities and the rest will come. % About Eagles - they are really not that much handicapped compared to % Lotuses. I have a replay from Monza (Lotus track, they say), where % Chris Cavin spins and then goes to put on a really good show - mid % 1:28.5 laps with the best being 1:28.1 ! He had to slow down % considerably in ascrai to avoid hitting me, if the track was clear he % could have done a 1:27.8 on that lap. So yes, it is possible to beat % Lotuses without waiting for them to drop out or spin. Takes some % practice though. Agreed, the Eagle (and to some degrees all of the other marques) aren't handicapped too much in the sim. The real handicap for any marque is the driver. However, take two equally matched drivers and stick one in a Lotus and one in an Eagle and if they performed identically, I would feel pretty confident wagering my money on the Lotus. Hmmmmm... Interesting thought... Too bad there isn't a "ghost lap" option in GPL. I wonder if a perfect Lotus lap could be beaten by the same driver in a perfect Eagle lap... <snip> -- **************************** Michael E. Carver ************************* Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./. [- < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Perfect Eagle lap? I consider my perfect lap to be one where I put the car *where* I want it, *when* I want it. Meaning I'm at the limits of my control, but not OVER the limit. To me that sounds like a reasonable definition. Others may disagree. Problem is, MY perfect lap seems to be a lot slower than others' SLOPPY lap...depressing. __ Put your message in a modem, and throw it in the ***-sea... remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

On Thu, 07 Jan 1999 16:41:08 GMT, "Michael E. Carver" >Agreed, the Eagle (and to some degrees all of the other marques) aren't >handicapped too much in the sim. The real handicap for any marque is >the driver. However, take two equally matched drivers and stick one in >a Lotus and one in an Eagle and if they performed identically, I would >feel pretty confident wagering my money on the Lotus. Well, that's why the Lotus is considered a better car, right? :) But in reality there is no such thing as "equally matched drivers" and especially "identical performance". It all goes down to being consistent and being able to push the car a little more than your opponent while having the same amount of control. Imagine, Mr. Fast Guy is gaining 0.3 sec a lap on you, but in a 20lap race he goes wide once or twice. Still a close race. He goes wide in parabolica or masta - the win is yours :) Lotus is the best car in GPL and there's no argument about it. Eagles can achieve great things though, when driven by really good drivers.

Quoted text (26 lines)

> >"As with so many automotive advances, the use of the engine as a stressed > >frame member was established in racing by Lotus founder Colin Chapman. He > >did not originate the basic principle, but his elegant employment of it on > >the Formula One Lotus-Ford 49 was eye opening and convincing." > Not on topic but ... > I remember in a motor rebuilding class we placed an internal > micrometer transversly across the top of an empty engine cylinder - ie > pistons out and head off. The micrometer was adjusted so it was only > just tight enough to support its own weight. We then put one hand at > each end of the engine block and squeesed. We found that with just our > bare strength we could deform the cylinder block enough for the > micrometer to drop. > Of course when the head is bolted on the block would be more rigid. > But even so I was suprised at how much give there is in what seems to > be such a solid item. These were cast iron engines I'm talking about. > I assume that an alloy engine block is even more deformable with > stress, though I haven't tried the same trick with one. I wonder > therefore just how much give is in the engine block when used as a > stressed member. However much there is it is no doubt taken into > account. > Just wondering.

H'mmm, well.... there is some give in the engine block when used as a stressed unit, but the block is subject to heat exspansion/contraction, the moving parts are 'floating' on an oil 'suspension' (film of oil), the pistons are of course 'riding' on effectivly 'sprung' piston rings..... grankshaft and camshafts have 'endfloat'...... etc., so a little bit of 'flex' in the cylinder block is not gonna worry to much! Dave Hawnt (UK)