My McLaren F1

[Canadian Speed]

Hey all...

I've gotten my McLaren to handle pretty nicely with this set up... Give her a go and see what you think...

Shocks 11.5/10
Ride 60/63
Bound 5/5
Rebound 5/6
Camber 2.8/1.3
Toe 0/0
Stab 4/3

Breaks 3/4

P.S. I used the NA tuning... not the turbo for this one

 

[gtsr]

Hey all...

I've gotten my McLaren to handle pretty nicely with this set up... Give her a go and see what you think...

Shocks 14.8/15.8
Ride 60/60
Bound 5/5
Rebound 5/6
Camber 2.0/1.0
Toe -1/1
Stab 4/5

Breaks 10/8

Final 5.000 with the tranny trick. Set until the final gear is just touching the end of the box (sorry, forgot the number)

P.S. I used the NA tuning... not the turbo for this one

alot better than mine.excelent.

 

[Canadian Speed]

alot better than mine.excelent.

Cool... thanks... Enjoy...

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

that toe angle does work with the Fina , it gets it's lwb chassis to work for it. I sold my first BMMcL thinking it did'nt have the power for it's class . I really like it now , far better than in 4P where you could'nt get it flat&stiff

 

[rk]

Well, if we are going to go ahead and muddle the search by starting new threads for cars already posted, let's go ahead and give some constructive critisism too then, eh?
Take a look at that beautiful F1 as it rotates in your garage view. Do you see how the front dam and side skirts hug the polished floor? Almost an airtight seal, huh. Well not quite, but compared to the volume of air passing over and around it, the air remaining under the car would be pretty insignificant. Now imagine that insignificance of atmosphere as the McLaren passes over it and pushes most of the air over the top and around itself. As the rear tires pass, the body sweeps dramatically upward, yet those vertically placed fins prevent much of the previously displaced air from sweeping back in. Since the body is wedged underneath, traveling forward has the effect of increasing the volume the insignificance must occupy, but the air dam, side skirts and rear fins hold that amount of air constant, so the insignificance fights back in a very significant way, in fact, in a way that has been described as the greatest source of downforce in racing cars; it pulls back in the form of partial vacuum.
Your tunes will improve when you start applying chassis downforce.

 

[Canadian Speed]

that toe angle does work with the Fina , it gets it's lwb chassis to work for it. I sold my first BMMcL thinking it did'nt have the power for it's class . I really like it now , far better than in 4P where you could'nt get it flat&stiff

Glad it works for you...

 

[Canadian Speed]

Well, if we are going to go ahead and muddle the search by starting new threads for cars already posted, let's go ahead and give some constructive critisism too then, eh?
Take a look at that beautiful F1 as it rotates in your garage view. Do you see how the front dam and side skirts hug the polished floor? Almost an airtight seal, huh. Well not quite, but compared to the volume of air passing over and around it, the air remaining under the car would be pretty insignificant. Now imagine that insignificance of atmosphere as the McLaren passes over it and pushes most of the air over the top and around itself. As the rear tires pass, the body sweeps dramatically upward, yet those vertically placed fins prevent much of the previously displaced air from sweeping back in. Since the body is wedged underneath, traveling forward has the effect of increasing the volume the insignificance must occupy, but the air dam, side skirts and rear fins hold that amount of air constant, so the insignificance fights back in a very significant way, in fact, in a way that has been described as the greatest source of downforce in racing cars; it pulls back in the form of partial vacuum.
Your tunes will improve when you start applying chassis downforce.

How might one apply chassis downforce?

 

[rk]

Cant it. the formula I use is: 50 to 30mm for street mods, 30 to 25mm for race chassis, 25mm for LMP's and 10mm for the F1. Exactly as was done here:

...The car tuned had all available modifications including frame stiffner. It was tuned at Nurburgring on racing hards.
brakes 3/4
springs 13.2/13.2
height 80/105
bound 6/6
rebound 7/7
camber 2.7/1.6
toe -1/0
stabilizer 6/6
asm/o 0
asm/u 0
tcs 3
downforce 38/53
lsd 12/40/15
enjoy

which was posted here:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=63445

 

[Canadian Speed]

Cant it. the formula I use is: 50 to 30mm for street mods, 30 to 25mm for race chassis, 25mm for LMP's and 10mm for the F1. Exactly as was done here:

I'm sorry, I don't understand your formula... is that supposed to be ride height? Like what... raise the back end up to allow air to flow (or lack there of) under the car? I don't follow...

At any rate, I've tried your set up and I found it a bit to touchy for myself personaly...

 

[rk]

I'm sorry, I don't understand your formula... is that supposed to be ride height? Like what... raise the back end up to allow air to flow (or lack there of) under the car? I don't follow...

At any rate, I've tried your set up and I found it a bit to touchy for myself personaly...

"Touchiness" can best be remedied by skewing spring settings a click or two towards understeer; i.e., if a car with 13.1/13.2 springs is too whippy, go 13.1/13.1 or 13.3/13.2. If one click changes things too much, you can try the same thing with the dampers, drop or raise bound/rebound at one end and it will be slightly more over- or understeery in transitions. For the formula (I didn't realize how complicated it might seem) what could be easier than leaving the front at default and jacking the rear all the way,except, maybe...not changing anything at all.
Don't worry, the same thing happened to me during GT2. I was posting tunes on a forum very similar to this, well reasoned, logical and tested tunes; and some guy was posting "raked" tunes that are quite highly received. I challenged him about the awkwardness of his tunes, how they were counterintuitive and mocked low center-of-gravity tunes and blah blah blah. He politely replied that there seemed to be some measure or credit for air pushing down on the body and he was simply using what worked. I eventually had to convert all my tunes to canted because they WOULD go faster, but I never figured it out, I don't think he had either.
Then, while working on high speed instability issues with my Lotus Elan, I mean, a Lotus should be able to go 140(mph), no? I read this article:

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/techarticle1.htm

and specifically, this paragraph:

Now it makes sense to ask what it is that keeps these cars on the ground at 200 mph. First of all we have the approximately 2000 lb. weight of the car. Second we have ground effect aerodynamics, which are very significant on these cars. "Wait," you say, "they have flat bottoms, they can't possibly be using ground effects to keep them on the ground."* Wrong.* The nose part of the flat bottom is closer to the ground than the tail portion and the resultant angle is referred to as the rake angle, which is typically 2-5 degrees. That small rake angle creates a shallow ground effects tunnel which produces the vast majority of the total downforce generated by the car. As anyone who has seen these cars can attest, the angle that the flat bottom makes with the road is barely perceptible, yet that same small angle makes a huge difference in the downforce generated by the car. Typically if a team is experimenting with a large change in rake angle set-up for a particular track they might crank in a 0.100 inch change in the height of one end of the car or the other. That should indicate how critical the rake angle is.

Bottom line is, the game physics engine makes provision for chassis downforce and it does not seem to penalize for c.g. issues and cornering dynamics that might be typical of a raked chassis.

 

[Canadian Speed]

"Touchiness" can best be remedied by skewing spring settings a click or two towards understeer; i.e., if a car with 13.1/13.2 springs is too whippy, go 13.1/13.1 or 13.3/13.2. If one click changes things too much, you can try the same thing with the dampers, drop or raise bound/rebound at one end and it will be slightly more over- or understeery in transitions. For the formula (I didn't realize how complicated it might seem) what could be easier than leaving the front at default and jacking the rear all the way,except, maybe...not changing anything at all.
Don't worry, the same thing happened to me during GT2. I was posting tunes on a forum very similar to this, well reasoned, logical and tested tunes; and some guy was posting "raked" tunes that are quite highly received. I challenged him about the awkwardness of his tunes, how they were counterintuitive and mocked low center-of-gravity tunes and blah blah blah. He politely replied that there seemed to be some measure or credit for air pushing down on the body and he was simply using what worked. I eventually had to convert all my tunes to canted because they WOULD go faster, but I never figured it out, I don't think he had either.
Then, while working on high speed instability issues with my Lotus Elan, I mean, a Lotus should be able to go 140(mph), no? I read this article:

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/techarticle1.htm

and specifically, this paragraph:


Bottom line is, the game physics engine makes provision for chassis downforce and it does not seem to penalize for c.g. issues and cornering dynamics that might be typical of a raked chassis.

Cool... I'll play around and get back at em... see if I can't make it work for me. I sort of already did this a few times with a few of my other posts (a few of the ones I posted along with this one)... not knowing what it was called. Perhaps the angles weren't bang on, but I do/did notice a difference when raising the back end a bit...

 

[JW31]

Great Set up!

Here's mine... with the top speed if you want..


__________(Race)
Springs____11.2/10.2
RH________64/64
SB_________3/4
SRB________6/8
Cam______2.6/1.9
Toe________0/-1
Stab_______6/5

Gears____(Race)_______(Top Speed)275mph
1st_______3.695_________3.485
2nd_______2.395________2.295
3rd_______1.692_________1.600
4th_______1.269_________1.265
5th_______1.001_________1.005
6th_______0.814_________0.804
Final_____3.090__________2.600
Auto_______18___________18

LSD
IT__________5
Acel________33
Decel_______24

Breaks______6/5

DownForce____Full

Nos_______user pref

ASM over______0
ASM under_____0
TCS___________5

 

[JParker]

Your tunes will improve when you start applying chassis downforce.

Chassis downforce only works on tracks that allow for enough speed through turns to take advantage of it. For instance the vast majority of your tuning is done at Nurburgring. This high speed venue allows for an excellent application for it, as well as perhaps portions of LeSarthe. The majority of tracks in the game have abrupt turns in the low to mid speed range, requiring more attention to suspension and LSD tuning. Downforce is a major contributing factor on all circuits but is most effective at high speeds.

 

[pmgolf]

Your setting works great for me, JW31. Thanks.

Pete

 

[rk]

Chassis downforce only works on tracks that allow for enough speed through turns to take advantage of it. For instance the vast majority of your tuning is done at Nurburgring. This high speed venue allows for an excellent application for it, as well as perhaps portions of LeSarthe. The majority of tracks in the game have abrupt turns in the low to mid speed range, requiring more attention to suspension and LSD tuning. Downforce is a major contributing factor on all circuits but is most effective at high speeds.

The physics engine lacks the sophistication to support competent tune states that do not include canted chassis. Granted real life conditions might allow a low placed center of gravity to perform better that a car with its tail in the air, but you can prove it yourself, there are none of the anticipated performance reductions at low speed that are consistent with a jacked rear, try it.