New Ferraris Revealed in Project CARS 2 Content Leak

Massive missed opportunity by SMS to not include at least one Ferrari F1 for us to drive around Fiorano, that's what the track was built for anyway.
 
I was kind of indifferent about getting Mugello in another racing game after AC and FM7, but it's actually refreshing to see it with the trademark seasons, hours and weather scenarios of PC2.
 
The F355 is wonderful to drive. Brings back a lot of memories from playing F355 Challenge at the arcade. All my rig is missing are triple monitors. It's pretty close in performance to the Touring Car class. The setup of the car is strange though. For some reason it has very stiff front springs and very soft rear springs. The front spring rates are ridiculously stiff at something like 300+ N/mm at the softest setting. That's like 50% stiffer than springs on GT3 cars. The front spring rates are at least 2x as stiff as the rears. The default setup already has the front springs and antiroll bar as soft as possible, and the rear springs and antiroll bar as stiff as possible, and the car still understeers a bit and there's not really any way to tune it out.

The F40 is surprisingly quick, but the tires (I used Track tires) overheat quickly. Over one lap it's quicker than most modern supercars when I drove it at Watkins Glen. It's quicker than every road car I've tested there except the GT3 RS.
 
Last edited:
I really enjoyed my time with Ferrari Essentials last night. I used the cars at Fiorano and Mugello in Free Practice so have yet to race them but all were nice drives.

The 250 GT Berlinetta and 250 Testa Rossa were lovely old-school drives with plenty of squat, dive and bodyroll to deal with.
The 458 Aperta looks great but is a fairly generic drive. It doesn't sound raw enough though.
The FXX K is a monster which drives and sounds fantastic.
The 355 Challenge was a nice trip down memory lane. Sounds good if a little distorted at high revs but the driving makes up for it - Huge slightly slippy fun.
I only tried the 512 BB LM for a lap at Le Mans Classic. Not the most exciting lap to drive on your own so tonight I will race it there at night in the rain.
The F12 TdF is ferocious and spent quite a bit of time off road at Fiorano. It is a very exhilarating if scary drive. It sounds very good if a little muted. Not quiet, but perhaps a touch muffled.

Mugello is a super circuit, particularly for lower category racing, so to have it in PCars2 is much appreciated. Fiorano is a welcome novelty. It has that mysterious feeling as if you shouldn't be there.

Ferrari Essentials has become my favourite of the DLC packs with Porsche Legends a close second. My most anticipated pack was Le Mans Icons but, because the LMP1-H cars are so poorly represented, it has slipped right down. The Fun Pack was anything but.
 
Awong124
The F355 is wonderful to drive. Brings back a lot of memories from playing F355 Challenge at the arcade. All my rig is missing are triple monitors. It's pretty close in performance to the Touring Car class. The setup of the car is strange though. For some reason it has very stiff front springs and very soft rear springs. The front spring rates are ridiculously stiff at something like 300+ N/mm at the softest setting. That's like 50% stiffer than springs on GT3 cars. The front spring rates are at least 2x as stiff as the rears. The default setup already has the front springs and antiroll bar as soft as possible, and the rear springs and antiroll bar as stiff as possible, and the car still understeers a bit and there's not really any way to tune it out.
Click to expand...

Quoting my response from the official forums for better visibility:

The springs of the real F355 Challenge ARE incredibly stiff. From the reference I've found there are 2 spring packs available:

1800 lb/in Front and 700 lb/in Rear and
2200 lb/in Front and 900 lb/in Rear

which is:

315 N/mm Front and 123 N/mm Rear
385 N/mm Front and 158 N/mm Rear

With a front motion ratio of 0.7 that'll give you a wheel rate of 154 N/mm respectively 189 N/mm. So yes, the front suspension is indeed incredibly stiff on that car.
Click to expand...
 
Drove a few of the new cars last night.

250TR is fabulous - soft understeer on entry and lovely, benign oversteer as soon as you get back on the gas. F40 needs a lot of care trail braking, and has a 'bit' of lag, but fast once on boost. F355 felt a bit flat to me, but I only ran the Mugello invitational in the wet, so will need to try in the dry. F12 felt pretty easy to drive considering it's power. 512 was OK... not a great engine sound though.

Looking forward to getting in to a few more.
 
Casey Ringley, the physics lead at SMS, is busy posting up his "Physics Of..." notes for the Ferrari cars. The original thread I've linked has some roll-centre diagrams as well, if you're into seeing that level of detail :)

Ferrari 250GT Berlinetta SWB:
The 250 line of cars is very well documented (and ultimately quite simple in design) so it was easy to put together a model in our systems. Old homologation forms; owner's manuals of similar 250 models; even comparison to its successor, the 250GTO, provided tons of information as a baseline.

Chassis is a simple design with unequal-length A-arm front suspension and solid rear axle on leaf springs. The front end has nothing fancy going on but keeps a relatively stable roll center and little bump steer; most notable thing is that the steering geometry is quite old fashioned, which you would expect for a 1960 car. There is significant scrub radius due to the low kingpin inclination and ball joints being pretty far inboard of the wheel center to make room for fitting the brakes. It makes for informative FFB which helps give clear signals of countersteer when in slides, but it is a very different feel to more modern cars. Our rear end uses a metric four-link setup to approximate the leaf springs, same as we have done for the old Camaro and Escort; technically not the same arrangement, but the roll centre moves in the same way, lateral location, anti-squat and other pros & cons of the design work out almost exactly the same when configured right. Long story short, it does an ace job at putting down power but can feel a little wallowy when cornering.

The SWB was a true GT car; you would buy one, drive it to the circuit, and win various endurance races. The best SWB Competizione models had aluminum bodywork, and that is what we've copied here. Going with aluminum rather than steel dropped the weight from 1100kg to only 957kg. A little heavier than your average sports prototype of the time (DBR1, 250 Testa Rossa), but the coupé bodywork is good for aerodynamic drag meaning more top speed, and the car was generally very well sorted for road use so it did remarkably well in endurance racing.

Gearbox is a very simple 4-speed synchromesh unit with a range of crownwheel & pinion final drive ratios from 4.57:1 (very short tracks) to 3.44:1 (ideal for Le Mans) and a ZF-type limited slip differential. Funny enough, a great deal of the internals were licensed from Porsche. Haven't found any talk about differential setup, but we can be sure it was something like 4 or 6 clutches with symmetrical 40-45° ramp angles for between 30-50% locking factor, as generally everything from this time period used something close to that configuration. Works out well in game, too, with good stability on braking and good traction on power.

Like all Ferraris of this era, the real magic is in the engine. A 3.0L V12 using Colombo design dating back to 1947 and their first race cars, it was a very well-understood design giving good power and great reliability for the time. Engines in the SWB ranged from a quoted 240-280hp depending on state of tune. Ours is set to give 260hp @ 7,200rpm with a super smooth torque curve which peaks at 280Nm @ 6,000rpm but gives 90% of that peak all the way down to 3,200rpm. It has good grunt through the engine's whole range and pulls like a champ out of slow corners.

This is my favorite Ferrari of all time, and it doesn't disappoint after test driving the model in game. Pace is a good match for the DBR1 at all tracks tested so far; the 250GT is a little heavier but has slightly more power and slightly more top speed. Should be some epic racing to be had between this car, the DBR1, and the 250 Testa Rossa.

Ferrari 250 Testa Rossa:
I imagined, at first, that this would be more or less a direct copy of the 250GT since cars from this body-on-frame era shared a lot of their underpinnings, but some good information from the restoration of an original 1957 Testa Rossa chassis showed some differences worth including on our model.

Engine and gearbox are a very similar 3.0L Colombo V12 base as the 250GT SWB with the main difference being higher-compression pistons and tuning changes which bring the power level up to 295hp @ 7,200rpm. Gearbox is the same 4-speed with limited slip differential. They combine with the roadster's aerodynamics (more drag) for a similar top speed in the neighborhood of 165mph. The race-tuned engine was durable at high rpm, even if there was no real power advantage in doing so. There is at least one report of a driver at Le Mans being ordered to stick to 7,500rpm maximum on the Mulsanne straight but instead ignoring that order and letting the car run up to 9,500rpm between shifts...without any race-ending consequences.

That roadster bodywork helps the car weigh in almost 100kg lighter than the lightest 250GT at only 880kg - slightly more than the Aston DBR1 - with a nice weight distribution near 50:50 when the driver is onboard. A unique feature in the 1957 car are the 'pontoon' front fenders, added to help airflow for cooling the drum brakes but creating a not-insignificant drag penalty in doing so. Later updates to the 250 Testa Rossa (TR59, TR60, etc.) abandoned this design and moved to disc brakes for easier cooling. The drums are a good bit behind the performance of discs as used on 250GT SWB and Aston Martin DBR1, so while this one has the power advantage and gets up to speed more quickly, it is also more work to get it slowed back down.

Front suspension is similar to the 250GT in using unequal-length wishbones on a primitive steering geometry with small caster and kingpin angles, resulting in large scrub radius and little mechanical trail. This gives good self-centering to the steering feel (makes catching slides easy) but hurts cornering feel (harder to feel the grip limit) and is just kind of a trait of these older cars with their simpler designs. Makes an interesting comparison to the modern GT3 machines where so much has been learned about design in regard to using the kinematics to improve handling AND give the driver good information through steering feel.

Rear suspension takes a different design approach to the 250GT and it's semi-elliptical leaf springs. Here the solid axle is supported with upper trailing links and a triangulated lower link attached to a pivot on the differential gear housing. We found some dimensioned blueprints from chassis restoration work which was a huge help in getting these linkages correct. What it means, in practice, is that the 250GT rear roll center moves in sync with changes in the rear ride height at almost a 1:1 ratio while 250 Testa Rossa has a rear roll center which moves much less and in the opposite direction of suspension travel (i.e. the roll center raises as the rear end squats down). Both approaches work and are pretty dang good at controlling the rear end, but the general handling feel when braking and cornering is quite a strong contrast from one to the other. 250GT tightens up under braking for a comfortable, stable feel while 250TR loosens to get ready for a sharp turn-in that requires full attention. Kinda neat that two cars which, at first glance, seemed like they might be near clones with only bodywork changes have instead ended up offering very different driving experiences while also balancing nicely for performance on track.

Jussi’s default setup notes:
For the 250 TR/GT I had to think about whether I wanted to keep the setups more historically accurate as per Casey's research, or go for a more modern sensibility that would probably improve performance. In the end I decided that historical accuracy was the better idea. The main issue there really is just that if you drive like a real hooligan the cars can lean on the rear suspension quite a bit. Really like these two cars; they're similar but very different in how they handle, with the GT being much more stable as a platform and the TR wanting to dart in more. Or at least it wants to get sideways a bit more, at any rate. =)

Ferrari F40:
This is another one where there is a mountain of good reference material available - detailed owner's & workshop manuals, independent tests and measurements from private-owner cars, FerrariChat discussions, etc. - which made putting together an accurate model quite a straightforward process. Being one of the best-known and most popular road cars of all time worked very much in our favor.

Engine is the street-tuned version of the same 2.94L twin-turbo V8 as we have in the F40 LM. It was one of the first turbocharged engines to use ECU management of boost pressure to shape the torque curve; spiking boost pressure to the peak 22psi at mid-range rpm range and then bleeding some off at high rpm for smooth torque delivery up to the power peak. Quoted at 480hp@7000rpm, it was generally considered to be quite underrated and most tests I've seen have cars producing nearly that number at the wheels. What's probably the case is that boost bleed-off wasn't really active in test cars and owners easily tuned around it to hold near the maximum boost pressure right up through the full rpm range for just north of 500hp total. Ours defaults to that setup at 100% boost and the 'official' boost curve for 480hp at 75% boost.

Gearbox uses the Euro-spec ratios with 2.727:1 final drive ratio for hitting the 200mph top speed. Differential is a clutch & ramp type with default set to only around 25% lock in both directions (4 clutches + 50° ramps); the car has so much rear tire (335/35R17!) that it doesn't need a great deal of differential lock to handle the power and too much can shift the car into power understeer since there is so much grip at the back from the 335s.

Double-wishbone suspension is largely a carryover from the F40 LM and is built from detailed, dimensioned blueprints of the chassis, with adjustments for the road car ride height. Funny enough, the road car's suspension could be adjusted for ride height and track use but it required unbolting the whole thing and moving each suspension arm to a different set of attachment points. Ferrari were happy to let you adjust the car, but don't screw around with the roll center design. F40 owners have measured their own cars with spring rates at 480lb/in (83N/mm) front and 325lb/in (57N/mm) rear, which gives the factory setup a 12% stiffness bias to the front for a nice, stable, GT race car kind of setup.

Brakes were derived from Group C racing parts and the aerodynamics produce some useful downforce to keep the car stable at high speed. Real car had no driver aids, not even power brakes and steering. It really was a racing car for the road.

Overall, it's surprising how easy and predictable the F40 is to drive. You'd expect the wildest, fastest supercar of the late-1980s to be a handful that requires constant attention to turn fast laps. 480-500hp isn't really all that much by modern standards, though, and the general balance of the car was designed for stability and inspiring confidence in the driver to be fast around a track. Some old magazine tests of the car mention how it "edges into a nice, modest, deliberate understeer" and that comes across in our model too. Push the car too hard and it smoothly informs you about it without upsetting the chassis; a little trail braking or throttle lift usually is enough to pull the front end into the apex and then you are met with just the right amount of power oversteer on corner exit as the turbo boost comes on. It really feels like the car is working with you, and it pays off; I'm running the F40 around Fiorano within 1s of my 458 Specialé times despite a 100hp deficit.

Jussi’s default setup notes:
The F40 is an interesting car to drive, with some clear foibles to it that would be done differently today. The insane power output (for the day) made them put really wide rear tyres on it, especially compared to the fronts, which on modern rubber, like we primarily simulate, makes it feel like it has a surplus of grip at the rear end, and less at the front end. Think of it this way, the Chevy C7 Z06 has the same width rear tyres with more than 150 hp more power, and 4 cm wider fronts. The turbo lag is humongous by today's standards, and the gearing has big gaps to it (2nd gear pulls all the way to 150 km/h, whereas 3rd gear in the 458 SA pulls to a bit over 130 km/h), which makes efficient power usage a bit tricky. On controller this lead to some issues with getting the car to turn well at certain speeds, when the long gearing gaps prevent good engine braking. It's an interesting experience driving this car, very much of its time period, but definitely a capable machine.

The 458 SA on the other hand is a fully modern car with modern sensibilities to it (aside from the engine, since it's an NA one). The front to rear grip balance is perfectly thought out, the chassis balance is excellent, the NA engine gives you instant access to power, the gearing is really well spaced... This is just an awesome car to drive, my favorite road car currently.

Ferrari 458 Specialé A:
It's just about as good as I imagine a road car can get. Power, handling and speed are all abundant and in a perfect balance.

The engine is Ferrari's F136 4.5L naturally-aspirated V8 in its ultimate form, producing just over 600hp at the 9000rpm rev limit and 565Nm all the way down at 5200rpm. Dyno test references show just how strong this engine is above 4000rpm, holding over 90% of peak torque all the way from 4000-8000rpm and then only falling off gradually to make that top 25hp. It revs freely and is always ready to pull hard without needing you to work through the gearbox excessively (or at all, really).

That gearbox is a 7-speed dual-clutch unit like other 458 models with ratios spaced perfectly across all seven gears; no wasted top gear on fuel economy here, they are evenly-spaced up to the top speed of 320kph. The differential uses our approximation of Ferrari's e-diff similar to what you'll find on the LaFerrari or FXX-K, blending aspects of geared, clutch & ramp, and viscous to help guide the rear axle in various conditions.

Ferrari make some aerodynamic claims for the 458 Specialé which are quite credible. The car has an array of active flaps; some close at 105mph to reduce drag and others in the rear diffuser adjust above 137mph to shift aero balance 20% to the rear for high speed stability. Our model copies this in the same way with speed-sensitive elements front and rear. In total, they produce around 500lb of downforce at 150mph with the front balance moving somewhere between 12-32% depending on your speed. It's enough to aid cornering performance, but not so much that it feels like an extreme, high-downforce car that can only be driven fast or falls over if not driven on tidy racing lines. This car loves holding a bit of a drift through turns.

Suspension uses a design family common to just about every Ferrari for the last decade - double wishbone front and multi-link rear - which we have good reference for and it just does a great job. Plotting out the roll centers and roll axis motion is a textbook example of how to design a car for good handling behavior. The 5th link of the multi-link rear is a neat little thing between the lower control arm and upright to triangulate with the toe link and prevent axial motion. Makes it work almost exactly like a double wishbone design, but with lighter components and tighter packaging...cool stuff. Springs and dampers in the 458SA are pretty dang stiff and with a similar balance to the LaFerrari: slight front stiffness bias for steady, predictable, mid-corner understeer which can easily be defeated using power. We've included adjustment range here to take it down to standard 458 Italia stiffness or right up to Challenge-spec GT stiffness if you want.

The real 458 Specialé (not Aperta) turned a 1:23.5 at Fiorano. Ours is right in that ballpark on Corsa tires if you can restrain yourself from drifting through the corners too much. You can sorta kinda mimic Ferrari's side slip control to some very fun results too. Turn stability control off and take traction control up to 25-30% slip allowed. Does a great job of hanging the rear end out with throttle planted and still leaves good control over the car through the steering wheel. Massively fun car.

Ferrari FXX-K:
This might be my favorite car in game. I totally expected the 1035hp monster to be more difficult than it is fun, but it handles that power wonderfully. The base is 90% the same as the LaFerrari, so that car also received a few fixes/updates in the process of building up this one. The differences between the two largely boil down to just a few performance enhancements in the engine, drivetrain and aerodynamics.

The LaFerrari 6.3L V12 is tweaked and tuned to bring power up from 790hp to 850hp at a whopping 9200rpm. It is a very smooth torque curve with 90% of peak available at 4000rpm, a smooth rise up to 750Nm@6500rpm, and then a smooth drop off for increasing power right up to the fuel cut. Immediate and smooth throttle response in a way that even the best turbo engine can’t achieve. Augmenting the V12 is an e-motor adding 142kW on the rear axle. Ferrari haven't mentioned specifics about the system but do hint that it changes a lot of the road car parts out for their F1 systems. We've run with that idea and increased the charging rate by 60% over the road car, to levels in line with what works on the LM P1H cars, and send it to the same 2.3kW-h (8.3MJ) battery as in the LaFerrari.

Gear ratios are shortened in the FXX-K to hit the rev limit in 7th at 350km/h instead of 405 of the LaFerrari. Not that there is ever a bad gear to be in with all that power on hand, but it does feel great on track having the gearing matched so closely to the aero-limit. The differential uses our blend of Geared+Clutch+Viscous effects to emulate Ferrari's e-diff, just as in the 458SA and LaFerrari.

For fun, I've added in some engine maps to the Lean/Normal/Rich function so you can run it on different power levels like the Aston Vulcan. The lean one holds it at 600hp, which is surprisingly easy to manage, and won't activate the e-motor assist so you get faster re-charging. Rich puts everything to max for 1035hp total at peak and 'normal' is halfway between for about 720hp from the V12 and 71kW from the e-motor.

Extra wings and aero parts are added front and rear on the FXX-K, with the claimed gains being about 40% more downforce over the LaFerrari for as much as 520kg @ 200km/h. That is A LOT of downforce - greater than GT3 levels - and refers to the highest downforce mode of all the active flaps when at maximum braking effort. The official claims also note a number of 675kg downforce at maximum speed, which means more than 50% of the maximum downforce is removed when the active aero elements are in their low-drag positions. Our active aero model copies this by looking at brake pedal force, speed, and cornering effort to blend between those downforce targets with the bulk of the maximum downforce load going to the rear - roughly a 10% rearward shift in aero balance for stability when it detects you need it.

Suspension tuning proved to be very simple. We had accurate stiffness values for the springs and anti-roll bars of LaFerrari and known weight reduction for the FXX-K. FXX-K has a quoted 'dry' weight of 1165kg but has been tested at 1495kg 'with fluids'...that's a lot of ‘fluid’. Still, it's a good 100kg less than the LaFerrari, and the road car being racecar-stiff to start with meant that its springs work well here. Damper valving from the road car units gives nice control too. All it needed was some extra front anti-roll bar to handle the increase in cornering load from slick tires - 300% stiffer, effectively changing from a 27.5x2.5mm bar to 35.0x4.0mm. Either way, it relies very little on the ARBs compared to the corner springs, and this appears to be a design philosophy across all Ferraris for some time now: anti-roll bar as a fine-tuning device only.

It's real fast. They've lapped Fiorano in the real thing at 1:14 and I've done a couple laps in ours at 1:13. Close enough for rock and roll considering we don't know the exact slick rubber compound they were using. Comfortably in the 6:20s at the Ring (Jussi is even dipping below into the 6:teens).

Jussi’s default setup notes:
Over 300 kg of "fluid"... I think some of those fluids might be the battery bank, since I doubt they've managed to fit in 4-5 full beer kegs anywhere in the car... =)

The FXX-K is indeed a really dang fast car, and the development on it helped a few other Ferraris too via shared components. If anything the car was "too good" as Casey delivered it, his setup essentially straight up going in as the Stable setup and I had to adjust it a decent bit before it started getting towards "loose" territory for that one, which sounds right for a 1000+ hp car they're selling to amateurs instead of proper racing drivers. The P1 GTR ain't much slower (due to much higher DF it can be faster too), but it certainly isn't as friendly as this.

Almost seems a bit too fast really, there's like nothing bad about how the car performs (you might drive it and say "braking distances", but considering it'll probably be approaching any given corner at least 50, maybe 80 km/h faster than a GT3 or GTE car, that's not really true), after my first lap around Nords to verify that, yes, it does run out of boost around half a lap in, I did a 6:15 from almost a standing start. Compared to this the Vulcan , Zonda Revolucion and P1 GTR are ferocious beasts, this is a cheetah that behaves like an adorable kitten.

Ferrari F355 Challenge:
Very happy with how this turned out! You typically read about how the F355 was beautiful, very fast, even more expensive, but pretty dang difficult to drive at the limit. Perhaps the road models hit that last point, but the Challenge kit certainly fixes any handling issues and makes for a wonderful gentleman's racer. FerrariChat, again, proved immensely useful as some smart people with experience racing and building the F355CH were very open with sharing technical details about the car.

Any F355 could be converted to Challenge with a $30k kit which included the usual safety upgrades required for racing: better brakes, race wheels, suspension upgrades, and a rear wing. Perhaps the most important change was swapping out brakes from the F40 (which, in turn, came from Group C racing) and the wider, slick race tires measuring 245mm at the front and a beefy 305mm at the rear. We have also included a 'Street' tire option in addition to the race slick and rain tires. The Challenge was still a street car at its core, and some have converted their F355s to Challenge spec for street use, so it's a fun option to have.

The engine and gearbox were largely unchanged from the road car. You get a 3.5L flat-crank V8 producing 375hp @ 8250rpm and a very wide power band with the 365Nm torque peak being more of a plateau between 4500-7500rpm. Dyno tests show very little power drop off right up to fuel cut at 9000rpm. Power runs through a 6-speed H-pattern gearbox (later cars could run the F1 sequential) and the usual clutch & ramp limited-slip differential. The Challenge has some big, sticky slick tires at the rear which make differential tuning a powerful setup tool in controlling the turn-in under/oversteer balance. Gearing is evenly-spaced and runs out right around the 300km/h top speed; perfect for track use.

The F355 went through an intensive wind tunnel program and the claim is that it produces 220lb downforce at 183mph thanks to the flat floor and various air management tricks. The Challenge kit then adds a rear wing which, according to those who know the car well, doesn't do a whole lot. Positioning it behind a vertical rear window and above a slew of engine vents put the wing in some dirty up-wash flow...a recipe for wing stall. Still, it will have a small effect and the combination of its light downforce and drag can be useful as a fine-tuning tool, shifting the aero balance about 20% rearward for stability at the maximum setting.

Suspension design has been well studied by the folks at FerrariChat and we used dimensioned blueprints to clone the behavior of roll centers and everything into our model. The most notable aspects are how the roll axis shifts some load forward when cornering for a smooth, comfortable understeer as you approach the limit and also that the rear roll center is quite responsive to ride height changes. This makes ride height one of your primary tools for adjusting chassis balance: higher rear=more oversteer, lower rear=more understeer. Changes at the front have a similar-but-opposite effect and with smaller impact; the rear end is your prime dial in this car. Rear ride height, camber, and toe angle on this one have a stronger effect on handling than just about any other parts of the setup. The other notable thing about the F355CH suspension is just how crazy stiff it was. Teams were allowed to use two sets of springs best described as ‘Stiff’ (1800lb/in front, 700lb/in rear) and ‘Super Stiff’ (2200/900). That's about 8x stiffer than the road car springs - it even required beefing up the chassis mounts to handle the suspension loads as part of the kit - and in the range you might expect a modern GT3 car to run with their large aero loads and lower ride height. Can't argue with results, though, and the setup gives nice, easy, predictable handling when combined with the light anti-roll bars this car used.

I think this will make an excellent league racing car, which was the whole point of it after all. Very easy to get up to 95% of its performance potential and getting the last few tenths takes a lot of effort and skill but without it ever feeling like it's going to bite your head off. Fun car.

Jussi’s default setup notes:
The F355 Challenge is an interesting design from somewhat of a bygone era. The springs, especially at the front, are super duper stiff for what it is, we're talking about a slightly modified road car without any real aero running on springs rivaling some modern prototype racers. This type of design was seen in a few Group A/DTM cars in the late 80s/early 90s, so I guess that's where Ferrari got the idea back in the day. What it tends to lead to is a car where the front responds quickly, but isn't very progressive, the car has basically no need for ARBs, and generally has some understeer tendencies, which makes it a good fit for gentleman racers. Camber, ride height and tyre pressures do allow a decent control over the handling balance, and I do find it quite satisfying to drive, but with my engineering hat on I would still like to try it with softer fronts/stiffer rears for a more naturally neutral spring balance.

This was originally on the GTO tyre set but after some testing we found that with the quite low power output of the engine it was better to limit the car to the hard compound to make it a bit more lively and interesting to drive. There's still plenty of grip but the car doesn't just feel like it's on rails now and is more fun to drive, the hard compound works better with the understeer tendencies in reducing front end wear. And since it's essentially a modified road car we put in some road rubber as an option too (some people have made their Challenge cars road legal, it'd be interesting to see how harsh the ride feels like with those massive spring rates).

Ferrari F12tdf:
The engine is another iteration of the LaFerrari 6.3L V12, here in F140FG spec giving slightly less power (still a whopping 769bhp) and ever-so-slightly more torque at a lower 6,250rpm. Really there's very little in it between the two; both being buttery-smooth sledgehammers of power. The 7-speed dual clutch gearbox is also very similar to the LaFerrari (and F12berlinetta) but with ratios shortened by 6% for sharper acceleration. We've again approximated Ferrari's active e-diff with a combination of Salisbury, Torsen, and viscous effects as on the others. You can fiddle with this to tighten the handling with a stronger diff (and make power-oversteer breakaway sharper) but, while we're approximating drive modes/aids, I've found adjusting the traction control strength does the best job at something like the different modes you get via Ferrari's Manettino dial. The default settings are pretty conservative, but take it up to 20-25% slip allowed and the car will comfortably hang out the rear end through corners while you hold throttle to the floor. Fun stuff.

Suspension is in the same design family as the other modern Ferrari's with the only real difference being spring rates to suit the front-mid engine layout. They push that big V12 as far back as possible so, despite the engine being up front, weight distribution is a solid 54% rear with the driver's seating position pushing it back even a bit more; not all that different from the mid-engined models. The big thing differentiating F12tdf here is that they've given it more front tire and less rear tire, so it has no problems at all with turn-in or kicking the rear out on power.

Some very bold claims are made about the car's aerodynamics, quoting 230kg downforce at 200km/h for a lift:drag efficiency of 1.6; that's as high as your average GT3 car. The drag value this equates to makes perfect sense and puts top speed right around 340km/h as it should, but the downforce number kinda sends up a flag of being CFD numbers (these typically overestimate by about 20%) or picking an optimum, non-standard, very low ride height. They have done amazing things with the air management on F12tdf and have a very clean underbody plus diffuser...that said, I don't see it doing GT3+ levels of work at double the ride height. It still gives you some strong downforce with useful balance even at typical ride heights seen during a fast lap; impressive stuff for a car with no ugly wings or spoilers bolted on.

I'll admit I was a little worried this one would end up being too wild to be fun. Read/watch any road test and they make it sound like the F12tdf is this untamed beast that you must tiptoe around or you will Face the Consequences(tm). And, yeah, it does work out to more of an aggressive, oversteer balance than something like the LaFerrari, but it's still following that modern Ferrari architecture which is very nice and rewarding to control while being stupid fast around a lap. Jussi and I were guessing which class it would fit into before hitting the track; best guesses being top of Road C or barely into Road B just because it would be too oversteer-biased to be fast. Turns out it is a strong Road A contender. The real Fiorano lap time of 1:21 on Corsa tires totally jives, and putting Trofeos on it in game put it comfortably below the 1:20 mark. Crazy fast.

Jussi’s default setup notes:
This thing turned out quite different from how I envisioned it. I was looking forward to an overpowered GT car, mostly capable of ripping its tyres apart with the insane power, heading somewhere in the Road B rankings. What I got was a very capable and fast sports car, with good grip and balance, and even the power isn't that overwhelming when you have modern tyres capable of putting it down.

Casey and I were expecting it to land in either Road C or Road B initially, but after testing it out it drives so well (actually has decent DF too!) and is powerful enough that it ended up being very similar pace to the 720S, clearly in the Road A category.

And it really does drive well for a front-engined car. It's stiff but not overtly so, and the dampers are more traditional and not as bump biased as Macca usually makes their cars, which suits me better. The car has poise and purpose in its driving and despite the power output it's actually not that hard to handle on the throttle, at least on Trofeo R tyres. Corsas are a bit more of a challenge. The handling balance makes the car feel like it's lighter than it actually is.

You definitely can ruin your tyres handily even with the Trofeo Rs, but the car has enough balance (and our modeling of the Ferrari diff is subtle enough) that it's not terribly hard to avoid it if you can keep your right foot in check. With Corsas it does become more of an actual effort to keep the power under control.

And speaking of the Trofeo Rs, I've been reading up on my Sport Auto magazines and checking their tests. The development of these tyres today is insane. The Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 tyres started out as roughly P Zero Corsa equivalents, but these days they're right up there, perhaps even higher grip than the Trofeo R tyres, and the grip levels are such that even the drivers of Sport Auto, a magazine only loaning the car and unable to do that many runs of the track for their test, took the Porsche 991 GT2 RS around Nords in under 7 minutes. When Sport Auto tested the 918 in 2014 they were almost 20 seconds slower than Porsche's factory effort, and now they are going under 7 minutes with these things. Seeing these cars driven around Nords with these ludicrous tyres that were never used just a couple of years ago is further proof that our grip levels for these things were pretty much spot on, despite really good references and some arguments to the contrary. Modern tyres really are amazing things.

Really pleasantly surprised by this car, was expecting much more of a sledgehammer, something like a Corvette with a Vulcan engine, ended up with a seriously well balanced supercar.

Ferrari 512BB LM:
This car never really got any respect for its performance in period, and that is largely down to how it used the regulations to race in a class where it never stood a chance. The 512BB LM did not meet production requirements to run in FIA Group 4, so instead it used a loophole in the regulations to enter races in the IMSA GTX (GT Experimental) class, putting it directly against a cavalcade of Gr.5 Porsches 935 Turbo. 512BB LM was a nice racecar, particularly for endurance events or in the rain, but was vastly outmatched by cars weighing 200kg less with 300hp more power. Winning its class and finishing 5th overall in the 1981 Le Mans 24h is quite a remarkable achievement considering the raw performance disadvantage it faced.

To give better competition in races less than 24hr long, we've placed it in the Gr.4 class against against the alongside the BMW M1 Procar and Porsche 924 GTP. All three get performance in very different ways, but the overall balance is quite good and each one can shine at the right track with the right driver.

The heart of the car is a 4943cc F110A flat-12. They call it the Berlinetta Boxer, but really it is a 180° V12; Aaron found an article which claims the BB naming was actually a development codename in honor of Brigette Bardot! With mechanical fuel injection producing, in race tune, about 475hp @ 7250rpm and a healthy torque peak of 535Nm down at 5000rpm. It was enough extra power over the road model 512BBi that they had to redesign the gearbox internals for 1979 with straight-cut gears and everything strengthened for endurance.

Ironically, the flat-12’s design intent was to lower the center of gravity, but installation here required it to be placed above the gearbox. This pushed the whole unit upward 15-20cm, which is not at all what you want to do with a 250-odd kg lump of metal at the back of a car. This had a negative effect on the handling, making the car somewhat wayward and tough to predict. Most cars, including the reference car we scanned, appear to have addressed this by running narrow front tires - only 215mm tread width against 330mm rears - to keep the car in balance. It's a solution which appears to work quite well on our model too; the car loses some overall grip, perhaps, but the general balance is good and controllable. Do keep an eye on your tire temperatures with this one as the extra weight and narrow fronts mean it works the rubber at both ends more than the other Gr.4 cars. Hard slicks can often be the better choice here in a race as it will let you push harder for longer.

Our reference car had all the suspension links measured to copy into our model. The design there is all standard, double wishbone stuff with front roll center near the ground, rear RC about 8cm higher and similar motion up/down with chassis motion. Only noteworthy thing is that the steering geometry does follow the older design theory of large scrub radius with little mechanical trail; great for self-centering when catching slides but it does give a little 'delay' to the feel of mid-corner steering forces.

The real standout feature of 512BB LM is that bodywork. The angular shapes of the road car made for pretty poor top speed, and so it went to the Pininfarina wind tunnel for extensive redesign. The body was lengthened by 40cm, lines smoothed out and pulled down to the floor level, and a rear wing from the 312T2 F1 car added on for stability. Result of this work - aside from being, IMO, one of the most graceful GT car designs ever - were top speeds in the neighborhood of 195mph at Le Mans, a good 12-15mph up on the BMW M1 with similar power. 512BB LM may carry an extra 150kg, but it carries it up to a handy Vmax. Use that top speed to your advantage and it can compete well with the lighter-but-slower BMW M1 and the even-better-handling-but-even-slower Porsche 924 GTP.
 
Last edited:
Nielsen
Since these cars are all you ever drive, have you found a workaround for the automatic KERS drainage?
Click to expand...
There’s really no workaround it’s a automatic feature of this cars and the only one that can do something about it is sms by making KRS Manuel like on the 2016 lmp cars.

But I must say the krs on the fxxk is really bad it doesn’t even last 1 lap around classic Monza oval while the p1 gtr can last up to 4.
 
I enjoyed driving every single car from this pack but the 512. I can't pick a favorite, but I think it's either the 355 or the FXX K. Or the f12 :lol:
 
Cluck
Casey Ringley, the physics lead at SMS, is busy posting up his "Physics Of..." notes for the Ferrari cars. The original thread I've linked has some roll-centre diagrams as well, if you're into seeing that level of detail :)

Ferrari 250GT Berlinetta SWB:
The 250 line of cars is very well documented (and ultimately quite simple in design) so it was easy to put together a model in our systems. Old homologation forms; owner's manuals of similar 250 models; even comparison to its successor, the 250GTO, provided tons of information as a baseline.

Chassis is a simple design with unequal-length A-arm front suspension and solid rear axle on leaf springs. The front end has nothing fancy going on but keeps a relatively stable roll center and little bump steer; most notable thing is that the steering geometry is quite old fashioned, which you would expect for a 1960 car. There is significant scrub radius due to the low kingpin inclination and ball joints being pretty far inboard of the wheel center to make room for fitting the brakes. It makes for informative FFB which helps give clear signals of countersteer when in slides, but it is a very different feel to more modern cars. Our rear end uses a metric four-link setup to approximate the leaf springs, same as we have done for the old Camaro and Escort; technically not the same arrangement, but the roll centre moves in the same way, lateral location, anti-squat and other pros & cons of the design work out almost exactly the same when configured right. Long story short, it does an ace job at putting down power but can feel a little wallowy when cornering.

The SWB was a true GT car; you would buy one, drive it to the circuit, and win various endurance races. The best SWB Competizione models had aluminum bodywork, and that is what we've copied here. Going with aluminum rather than steel dropped the weight from 1100kg to only 957kg. A little heavier than your average sports prototype of the time (DBR1, 250 Testa Rossa), but the coupé bodywork is good for aerodynamic drag meaning more top speed, and the car was generally very well sorted for road use so it did remarkably well in endurance racing.

Gearbox is a very simple 4-speed synchromesh unit with a range of crownwheel & pinion final drive ratios from 4.57:1 (very short tracks) to 3.44:1 (ideal for Le Mans) and a ZF-type limited slip differential. Funny enough, a great deal of the internals were licensed from Porsche. Haven't found any talk about differential setup, but we can be sure it was something like 4 or 6 clutches with symmetrical 40-45° ramp angles for between 30-50% locking factor, as generally everything from this time period used something close to that configuration. Works out well in game, too, with good stability on braking and good traction on power.

Like all Ferraris of this era, the real magic is in the engine. A 3.0L V12 using Colombo design dating back to 1947 and their first race cars, it was a very well-understood design giving good power and great reliability for the time. Engines in the SWB ranged from a quoted 240-280hp depending on state of tune. Ours is set to give 260hp @ 7,200rpm with a super smooth torque curve which peaks at 280Nm @ 6,000rpm but gives 90% of that peak all the way down to 3,200rpm. It has good grunt through the engine's whole range and pulls like a champ out of slow corners.

This is my favorite Ferrari of all time, and it doesn't disappoint after test driving the model in game. Pace is a good match for the DBR1 at all tracks tested so far; the 250GT is a little heavier but has slightly more power and slightly more top speed. Should be some epic racing to be had between this car, the DBR1, and the 250 Testa Rossa.

Ferrari 250 Testa Rossa:
I imagined, at first, that this would be more or less a direct copy of the 250GT since cars from this body-on-frame era shared a lot of their underpinnings, but some good information from the restoration of an original 1957 Testa Rossa chassis showed some differences worth including on our model.

Engine and gearbox are a very similar 3.0L Colombo V12 base as the 250GT SWB with the main difference being higher-compression pistons and tuning changes which bring the power level up to 295hp @ 7,200rpm. Gearbox is the same 4-speed with limited slip differential. They combine with the roadster's aerodynamics (more drag) for a similar top speed in the neighborhood of 165mph. The race-tuned engine was durable at high rpm, even if there was no real power advantage in doing so. There is at least one report of a driver at Le Mans being ordered to stick to 7,500rpm maximum on the Mulsanne straight but instead ignoring that order and letting the car run up to 9,500rpm between shifts...without any race-ending consequences.

That roadster bodywork helps the car weigh in almost 100kg lighter than the lightest 250GT at only 880kg - slightly more than the Aston DBR1 - with a nice weight distribution near 50:50 when the driver is onboard. A unique feature in the 1957 car are the 'pontoon' front fenders, added to help airflow for cooling the drum brakes but creating a not-insignificant drag penalty in doing so. Later updates to the 250 Testa Rossa (TR59, TR60, etc.) abandoned this design and moved to disc brakes for easier cooling. The drums are a good bit behind the performance of discs as used on 250GT SWB and Aston Martin DBR1, so while this one has the power advantage and gets up to speed more quickly, it is also more work to get it slowed back down.

Front suspension is similar to the 250GT in using unequal-length wishbones on a primitive steering geometry with small caster and kingpin angles, resulting in large scrub radius and little mechanical trail. This gives good self-centering to the steering feel (makes catching slides easy) but hurts cornering feel (harder to feel the grip limit) and is just kind of a trait of these older cars with their simpler designs. Makes an interesting comparison to the modern GT3 machines where so much has been learned about design in regard to using the kinematics to improve handling AND give the driver good information through steering feel.

Rear suspension takes a different design approach to the 250GT and it's semi-elliptical leaf springs. Here the solid axle is supported with upper trailing links and a triangulated lower link attached to a pivot on the differential gear housing. We found some dimensioned blueprints from chassis restoration work which was a huge help in getting these linkages correct. What it means, in practice, is that the 250GT rear roll center moves in sync with changes in the rear ride height at almost a 1:1 ratio while 250 Testa Rossa has a rear roll center which moves much less and in the opposite direction of suspension travel (i.e. the roll center raises as the rear end squats down). Both approaches work and are pretty dang good at controlling the rear end, but the general handling feel when braking and cornering is quite a strong contrast from one to the other. 250GT tightens up under braking for a comfortable, stable feel while 250TR loosens to get ready for a sharp turn-in that requires full attention. Kinda neat that two cars which, at first glance, seemed like they might be near clones with only bodywork changes have instead ended up offering very different driving experiences while also balancing nicely for performance on track.

Jussi’s default setup notes:
For the 250 TR/GT I had to think about whether I wanted to keep the setups more historically accurate as per Casey's research, or go for a more modern sensibility that would probably improve performance. In the end I decided that historical accuracy was the better idea. The main issue there really is just that if you drive like a real hooligan the cars can lean on the rear suspension quite a bit. Really like these two cars; they're similar but very different in how they handle, with the GT being much more stable as a platform and the TR wanting to dart in more. Or at least it wants to get sideways a bit more, at any rate. =)

Ferrari F40:
This is another one where there is a mountain of good reference material available - detailed owner's & workshop manuals, independent tests and measurements from private-owner cars, FerrariChat discussions, etc. - which made putting together an accurate model quite a straightforward process. Being one of the best-known and most popular road cars of all time worked very much in our favor.

Engine is the street-tuned version of the same 2.94L twin-turbo V8 as we have in the F40 LM. It was one of the first turbocharged engines to use ECU management of boost pressure to shape the torque curve; spiking boost pressure to the peak 22psi at mid-range rpm range and then bleeding some off at high rpm for smooth torque delivery up to the power peak. Quoted at 480hp@7000rpm, it was generally considered to be quite underrated and most tests I've seen have cars producing nearly that number at the wheels. What's probably the case is that boost bleed-off wasn't really active in test cars and owners easily tuned around it to hold near the maximum boost pressure right up through the full rpm range for just north of 500hp total. Ours defaults to that setup at 100% boost and the 'official' boost curve for 480hp at 75% boost.

Gearbox uses the Euro-spec ratios with 2.727:1 final drive ratio for hitting the 200mph top speed. Differential is a clutch & ramp type with default set to only around 25% lock in both directions (4 clutches + 50° ramps); the car has so much rear tire (335/35R17!) that it doesn't need a great deal of differential lock to handle the power and too much can shift the car into power understeer since there is so much grip at the back from the 335s.

Double-wishbone suspension is largely a carryover from the F40 LM and is built from detailed, dimensioned blueprints of the chassis, with adjustments for the road car ride height. Funny enough, the road car's suspension could be adjusted for ride height and track use but it required unbolting the whole thing and moving each suspension arm to a different set of attachment points. Ferrari were happy to let you adjust the car, but don't screw around with the roll center design. F40 owners have measured their own cars with spring rates at 480lb/in (83N/mm) front and 325lb/in (57N/mm) rear, which gives the factory setup a 12% stiffness bias to the front for a nice, stable, GT race car kind of setup.

Brakes were derived from Group C racing parts and the aerodynamics produce some useful downforce to keep the car stable at high speed. Real car had no driver aids, not even power brakes and steering. It really was a racing car for the road.

Overall, it's surprising how easy and predictable the F40 is to drive. You'd expect the wildest, fastest supercar of the late-1980s to be a handful that requires constant attention to turn fast laps. 480-500hp isn't really all that much by modern standards, though, and the general balance of the car was designed for stability and inspiring confidence in the driver to be fast around a track. Some old magazine tests of the car mention how it "edges into a nice, modest, deliberate understeer" and that comes across in our model too. Push the car too hard and it smoothly informs you about it without upsetting the chassis; a little trail braking or throttle lift usually is enough to pull the front end into the apex and then you are met with just the right amount of power oversteer on corner exit as the turbo boost comes on. It really feels like the car is working with you, and it pays off; I'm running the F40 around Fiorano within 1s of my 458 Specialé times despite a 100hp deficit.

Jussi’s default setup notes:
The F40 is an interesting car to drive, with some clear foibles to it that would be done differently today. The insane power output (for the day) made them put really wide rear tyres on it, especially compared to the fronts, which on modern rubber, like we primarily simulate, makes it feel like it has a surplus of grip at the rear end, and less at the front end. Think of it this way, the Chevy C7 Z06 has the same width rear tyres with more than 150 hp more power, and 4 cm wider fronts. The turbo lag is humongous by today's standards, and the gearing has big gaps to it (2nd gear pulls all the way to 150 km/h, whereas 3rd gear in the 458 SA pulls to a bit over 130 km/h), which makes efficient power usage a bit tricky. On controller this lead to some issues with getting the car to turn well at certain speeds, when the long gearing gaps prevent good engine braking. It's an interesting experience driving this car, very much of its time period, but definitely a capable machine.

The 458 SA on the other hand is a fully modern car with modern sensibilities to it (aside from the engine, since it's an NA one). The front to rear grip balance is perfectly thought out, the chassis balance is excellent, the NA engine gives you instant access to power, the gearing is really well spaced... This is just an awesome car to drive, my favorite road car currently.

Ferrari 458 Specialé A:
It's just about as good as I imagine a road car can get. Power, handling and speed are all abundant and in a perfect balance.

The engine is Ferrari's F136 4.5L naturally-aspirated V8 in its ultimate form, producing just over 600hp at the 9000rpm rev limit and 565Nm all the way down at 5200rpm. Dyno test references show just how strong this engine is above 4000rpm, holding over 90% of peak torque all the way from 4000-8000rpm and then only falling off gradually to make that top 25hp. It revs freely and is always ready to pull hard without needing you to work through the gearbox excessively (or at all, really).

That gearbox is a 7-speed dual-clutch unit like other 458 models with ratios spaced perfectly across all seven gears; no wasted top gear on fuel economy here, they are evenly-spaced up to the top speed of 320kph. The differential uses our approximation of Ferrari's e-diff similar to what you'll find on the LaFerrari or FXX-K, blending aspects of geared, clutch & ramp, and viscous to help guide the rear axle in various conditions.

Ferrari make some aerodynamic claims for the 458 Specialé which are quite credible. The car has an array of active flaps; some close at 105mph to reduce drag and others in the rear diffuser adjust above 137mph to shift aero balance 20% to the rear for high speed stability. Our model copies this in the same way with speed-sensitive elements front and rear. In total, they produce around 500lb of downforce at 150mph with the front balance moving somewhere between 12-32% depending on your speed. It's enough to aid cornering performance, but not so much that it feels like an extreme, high-downforce car that can only be driven fast or falls over if not driven on tidy racing lines. This car loves holding a bit of a drift through turns.

Suspension uses a design family common to just about every Ferrari for the last decade - double wishbone front and multi-link rear - which we have good reference for and it just does a great job. Plotting out the roll centers and roll axis motion is a textbook example of how to design a car for good handling behavior. The 5th link of the multi-link rear is a neat little thing between the lower control arm and upright to triangulate with the toe link and prevent axial motion. Makes it work almost exactly like a double wishbone design, but with lighter components and tighter packaging...cool stuff. Springs and dampers in the 458SA are pretty dang stiff and with a similar balance to the LaFerrari: slight front stiffness bias for steady, predictable, mid-corner understeer which can easily be defeated using power. We've included adjustment range here to take it down to standard 458 Italia stiffness or right up to Challenge-spec GT stiffness if you want.

The real 458 Specialé (not Aperta) turned a 1:23.5 at Fiorano. Ours is right in that ballpark on Corsa tires if you can restrain yourself from drifting through the corners too much. You can sorta kinda mimic Ferrari's side slip control to some very fun results too. Turn stability control off and take traction control up to 25-30% slip allowed. Does a great job of hanging the rear end out with throttle planted and still leaves good control over the car through the steering wheel. Massively fun car.

Ferrari FXX-K:
This might be my favorite car in game. I totally expected the 1035hp monster to be more difficult than it is fun, but it handles that power wonderfully. The base is 90% the same as the LaFerrari, so that car also received a few fixes/updates in the process of building up this one. The differences between the two largely boil down to just a few performance enhancements in the engine, drivetrain and aerodynamics.

The LaFerrari 6.3L V12 is tweaked and tuned to bring power up from 790hp to 850hp at a whopping 9200rpm. It is a very smooth torque curve with 90% of peak available at 4000rpm, a smooth rise up to 750Nm@6500rpm, and then a smooth drop off for increasing power right up to the fuel cut. Immediate and smooth throttle response in a way that even the best turbo engine can’t achieve. Augmenting the V12 is an e-motor adding 142kW on the rear axle. Ferrari haven't mentioned specifics about the system but do hint that it changes a lot of the road car parts out for their F1 systems. We've run with that idea and increased the charging rate by 60% over the road car, to levels in line with what works on the LM P1H cars, and send it to the same 2.3kW-h (8.3MJ) battery as in the LaFerrari.

Gear ratios are shortened in the FXX-K to hit the rev limit in 7th at 350km/h instead of 405 of the LaFerrari. Not that there is ever a bad gear to be in with all that power on hand, but it does feel great on track having the gearing matched so closely to the aero-limit. The differential uses our blend of Geared+Clutch+Viscous effects to emulate Ferrari's e-diff, just as in the 458SA and LaFerrari.

For fun, I've added in some engine maps to the Lean/Normal/Rich function so you can run it on different power levels like the Aston Vulcan. The lean one holds it at 600hp, which is surprisingly easy to manage, and won't activate the e-motor assist so you get faster re-charging. Rich puts everything to max for 1035hp total at peak and 'normal' is halfway between for about 720hp from the V12 and 71kW from the e-motor.

Extra wings and aero parts are added front and rear on the FXX-K, with the claimed gains being about 40% more downforce over the LaFerrari for as much as 520kg @ 200km/h. That is A LOT of downforce - greater than GT3 levels - and refers to the highest downforce mode of all the active flaps when at maximum braking effort. The official claims also note a number of 675kg downforce at maximum speed, which means more than 50% of the maximum downforce is removed when the active aero elements are in their low-drag positions. Our active aero model copies this by looking at brake pedal force, speed, and cornering effort to blend between those downforce targets with the bulk of the maximum downforce load going to the rear - roughly a 10% rearward shift in aero balance for stability when it detects you need it.

Suspension tuning proved to be very simple. We had accurate stiffness values for the springs and anti-roll bars of LaFerrari and known weight reduction for the FXX-K. FXX-K has a quoted 'dry' weight of 1165kg but has been tested at 1495kg 'with fluids'...that's a lot of ‘fluid’. Still, it's a good 100kg less than the LaFerrari, and the road car being racecar-stiff to start with meant that its springs work well here. Damper valving from the road car units gives nice control too. All it needed was some extra front anti-roll bar to handle the increase in cornering load from slick tires - 300% stiffer, effectively changing from a 27.5x2.5mm bar to 35.0x4.0mm. Either way, it relies very little on the ARBs compared to the corner springs, and this appears to be a design philosophy across all Ferraris for some time now: anti-roll bar as a fine-tuning device only.

It's real fast. They've lapped Fiorano in the real thing at 1:14 and I've done a couple laps in ours at 1:13. Close enough for rock and roll considering we don't know the exact slick rubber compound they were using. Comfortably in the 6:20s at the Ring (Jussi is even dipping below into the 6:teens).

Jussi’s default setup notes:
Over 300 kg of "fluid"... I think some of those fluids might be the battery bank, since I doubt they've managed to fit in 4-5 full beer kegs anywhere in the car... =)

The FXX-K is indeed a really dang fast car, and the development on it helped a few other Ferraris too via shared components. If anything the car was "too good" as Casey delivered it, his setup essentially straight up going in as the Stable setup and I had to adjust it a decent bit before it started getting towards "loose" territory for that one, which sounds right for a 1000+ hp car they're selling to amateurs instead of proper racing drivers. The P1 GTR ain't much slower (due to much higher DF it can be faster too), but it certainly isn't as friendly as this.

Almost seems a bit too fast really, there's like nothing bad about how the car performs (you might drive it and say "braking distances", but considering it'll probably be approaching any given corner at least 50, maybe 80 km/h faster than a GT3 or GTE car, that's not really true), after my first lap around Nords to verify that, yes, it does run out of boost around half a lap in, I did a 6:15 from almost a standing start. Compared to this the Vulcan , Zonda Revolucion and P1 GTR are ferocious beasts, this is a cheetah that behaves like an adorable kitten.

Ferrari F355 Challenge:
Very happy with how this turned out! You typically read about how the F355 was beautiful, very fast, even more expensive, but pretty dang difficult to drive at the limit. Perhaps the road models hit that last point, but the Challenge kit certainly fixes any handling issues and makes for a wonderful gentleman's racer. FerrariChat, again, proved immensely useful as some smart people with experience racing and building the F355CH were very open with sharing technical details about the car.

Any F355 could be converted to Challenge with a $30k kit which included the usual safety upgrades required for racing: better brakes, race wheels, suspension upgrades, and a rear wing. Perhaps the most important change was swapping out brakes from the F40 (which, in turn, came from Group C racing) and the wider, slick race tires measuring 245mm at the front and a beefy 305mm at the rear. We have also included a 'Street' tire option in addition to the race slick and rain tires. The Challenge was still a street car at its core, and some have converted their F355s to Challenge spec for street use, so it's a fun option to have.

The engine and gearbox were largely unchanged from the road car. You get a 3.5L flat-crank V8 producing 375hp @ 8250rpm and a very wide power band with the 365Nm torque peak being more of a plateau between 4500-7500rpm. Dyno tests show very little power drop off right up to fuel cut at 9000rpm. Power runs through a 6-speed H-pattern gearbox (later cars could run the F1 sequential) and the usual clutch & ramp limited-slip differential. The Challenge has some big, sticky slick tires at the rear which make differential tuning a powerful setup tool in controlling the turn-in under/oversteer balance. Gearing is evenly-spaced and runs out right around the 300km/h top speed; perfect for track use.

The F355 went through an intensive wind tunnel program and the claim is that it produces 220lb downforce at 183mph thanks to the flat floor and various air management tricks. The Challenge kit then adds a rear wing which, according to those who know the car well, doesn't do a whole lot. Positioning it behind a vertical rear window and above a slew of engine vents put the wing in some dirty up-wash flow...a recipe for wing stall. Still, it will have a small effect and the combination of its light downforce and drag can be useful as a fine-tuning tool, shifting the aero balance about 20% rearward for stability at the maximum setting.

Suspension design has been well studied by the folks at FerrariChat and we used dimensioned blueprints to clone the behavior of roll centers and everything into our model. The most notable aspects are how the roll axis shifts some load forward when cornering for a smooth, comfortable understeer as you approach the limit and also that the rear roll center is quite responsive to ride height changes. This makes ride height one of your primary tools for adjusting chassis balance: higher rear=more oversteer, lower rear=more understeer. Changes at the front have a similar-but-opposite effect and with smaller impact; the rear end is your prime dial in this car. Rear ride height, camber, and toe angle on this one have a stronger effect on handling than just about any other parts of the setup. The other notable thing about the F355CH suspension is just how crazy stiff it was. Teams were allowed to use two sets of springs best described as ‘Stiff’ (1800lb/in front, 700lb/in rear) and ‘Super Stiff’ (2200/900). That's about 8x stiffer than the road car springs - it even required beefing up the chassis mounts to handle the suspension loads as part of the kit - and in the range you might expect a modern GT3 car to run with their large aero loads and lower ride height. Can't argue with results, though, and the setup gives nice, easy, predictable handling when combined with the light anti-roll bars this car used.

I think this will make an excellent league racing car, which was the whole point of it after all. Very easy to get up to 95% of its performance potential and getting the last few tenths takes a lot of effort and skill but without it ever feeling like it's going to bite your head off. Fun car.

Jussi’s default setup notes:
The F355 Challenge is an interesting design from somewhat of a bygone era. The springs, especially at the front, are super duper stiff for what it is, we're talking about a slightly modified road car without any real aero running on springs rivaling some modern prototype racers. This type of design was seen in a few Group A/DTM cars in the late 80s/early 90s, so I guess that's where Ferrari got the idea back in the day. What it tends to lead to is a car where the front responds quickly, but isn't very progressive, the car has basically no need for ARBs, and generally has some understeer tendencies, which makes it a good fit for gentleman racers. Camber, ride height and tyre pressures do allow a decent control over the handling balance, and I do find it quite satisfying to drive, but with my engineering hat on I would still like to try it with softer fronts/stiffer rears for a more naturally neutral spring balance.

This was originally on the GTO tyre set but after some testing we found that with the quite low power output of the engine it was better to limit the car to the hard compound to make it a bit more lively and interesting to drive. There's still plenty of grip but the car doesn't just feel like it's on rails now and is more fun to drive, the hard compound works better with the understeer tendencies in reducing front end wear. And since it's essentially a modified road car we put in some road rubber as an option too (some people have made their Challenge cars road legal, it'd be interesting to see how harsh the ride feels like with those massive spring rates).

Ferrari F12tdf:
The engine is another iteration of the LaFerrari 6.3L V12, here in F140FG spec giving slightly less power (still a whopping 769bhp) and ever-so-slightly more torque at a lower 6,250rpm. Really there's very little in it between the two; both being buttery-smooth sledgehammers of power. The 7-speed dual clutch gearbox is also very similar to the LaFerrari (and F12berlinetta) but with ratios shortened by 6% for sharper acceleration. We've again approximated Ferrari's active e-diff with a combination of Salisbury, Torsen, and viscous effects as on the others. You can fiddle with this to tighten the handling with a stronger diff (and make power-oversteer breakaway sharper) but, while we're approximating drive modes/aids, I've found adjusting the traction control strength does the best job at something like the different modes you get via Ferrari's Manettino dial. The default settings are pretty conservative, but take it up to 20-25% slip allowed and the car will comfortably hang out the rear end through corners while you hold throttle to the floor. Fun stuff.

Suspension is in the same design family as the other modern Ferrari's with the only real difference being spring rates to suit the front-mid engine layout. They push that big V12 as far back as possible so, despite the engine being up front, weight distribution is a solid 54% rear with the driver's seating position pushing it back even a bit more; not all that different from the mid-engined models. The big thing differentiating F12tdf here is that they've given it more front tire and less rear tire, so it has no problems at all with turn-in or kicking the rear out on power.

Some very bold claims are made about the car's aerodynamics, quoting 230kg downforce at 200km/h for a lift:drag efficiency of 1.6; that's as high as your average GT3 car. The drag value this equates to makes perfect sense and puts top speed right around 340km/h as it should, but the downforce number kinda sends up a flag of being CFD numbers (these typically overestimate by about 20%) or picking an optimum, non-standard, very low ride height. They have done amazing things with the air management on F12tdf and have a very clean underbody plus diffuser...that said, I don't see it doing GT3+ levels of work at double the ride height. It still gives you some strong downforce with useful balance even at typical ride heights seen during a fast lap; impressive stuff for a car with no ugly wings or spoilers bolted on.

I'll admit I was a little worried this one would end up being too wild to be fun. Read/watch any road test and they make it sound like the F12tdf is this untamed beast that you must tiptoe around or you will Face the Consequences(tm). And, yeah, it does work out to more of an aggressive, oversteer balance than something like the LaFerrari, but it's still following that modern Ferrari architecture which is very nice and rewarding to control while being stupid fast around a lap. Jussi and I were guessing which class it would fit into before hitting the track; best guesses being top of Road C or barely into Road B just because it would be too oversteer-biased to be fast. Turns out it is a strong Road A contender. The real Fiorano lap time of 1:21 on Corsa tires totally jives, and putting Trofeos on it in game put it comfortably below the 1:20 mark. Crazy fast.

Jussi’s default setup notes:
This thing turned out quite different from how I envisioned it. I was looking forward to an overpowered GT car, mostly capable of ripping its tyres apart with the insane power, heading somewhere in the Road B rankings. What I got was a very capable and fast sports car, with good grip and balance, and even the power isn't that overwhelming when you have modern tyres capable of putting it down.

Casey and I were expecting it to land in either Road C or Road B initially, but after testing it out it drives so well (actually has decent DF too!) and is powerful enough that it ended up being very similar pace to the 720S, clearly in the Road A category.

And it really does drive well for a front-engined car. It's stiff but not overtly so, and the dampers are more traditional and not as bump biased as Macca usually makes their cars, which suits me better. The car has poise and purpose in its driving and despite the power output it's actually not that hard to handle on the throttle, at least on Trofeo R tyres. Corsas are a bit more of a challenge. The handling balance makes the car feel like it's lighter than it actually is.

You definitely can ruin your tyres handily even with the Trofeo Rs, but the car has enough balance (and our modeling of the Ferrari diff is subtle enough) that it's not terribly hard to avoid it if you can keep your right foot in check. With Corsas it does become more of an actual effort to keep the power under control.

And speaking of the Trofeo Rs, I've been reading up on my Sport Auto magazines and checking their tests. The development of these tyres today is insane. The Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 tyres started out as roughly P Zero Corsa equivalents, but these days they're right up there, perhaps even higher grip than the Trofeo R tyres, and the grip levels are such that even the drivers of Sport Auto, a magazine only loaning the car and unable to do that many runs of the track for their test, took the Porsche 991 GT2 RS around Nords in under 7 minutes. When Sport Auto tested the 918 in 2014 they were almost 20 seconds slower than Porsche's factory effort, and now they are going under 7 minutes with these things. Seeing these cars driven around Nords with these ludicrous tyres that were never used just a couple of years ago is further proof that our grip levels for these things were pretty much spot on, despite really good references and some arguments to the contrary. Modern tyres really are amazing things.

Really pleasantly surprised by this car, was expecting much more of a sledgehammer, something like a Corvette with a Vulcan engine, ended up with a seriously well balanced supercar.

Ferrari 512BB LM:
This car never really got any respect for its performance in period, and that is largely down to how it used the regulations to race in a class where it never stood a chance. The 512BB LM did not meet production requirements to run in FIA Group 4, so instead it used a loophole in the regulations to enter races in the IMSA GTX (GT Experimental) class, putting it directly against a cavalcade of Gr.5 Porsches 935 Turbo. 512BB LM was a nice racecar, particularly for endurance events or in the rain, but was vastly outmatched by cars weighing 200kg less with 300hp more power. Winning its class and finishing 5th overall in the 1981 Le Mans 24h is quite a remarkable achievement considering the raw performance disadvantage it faced.

To give better competition in races less than 24hr long, we've placed it in the Gr.4 class against against the alongside the BMW M1 Procar and Porsche 924 GTP. All three get performance in very different ways, but the overall balance is quite good and each one can shine at the right track with the right driver.

The heart of the car is a 4943cc F110A flat-12. They call it the Berlinetta Boxer, but really it is a 180° V12; Aaron found an article which claims the BB naming was actually a development codename in honor of Brigette Bardot! With mechanical fuel injection producing, in race tune, about 475hp @ 7250rpm and a healthy torque peak of 535Nm down at 5000rpm. It was enough extra power over the road model 512BBi that they had to redesign the gearbox internals for 1979 with straight-cut gears and everything strengthened for endurance.

Ironically, the flat-12’s design intent was to lower the center of gravity, but installation here required it to be placed above the gearbox. This pushed the whole unit upward 15-20cm, which is not at all what you want to do with a 250-odd kg lump of metal at the back of a car. This had a negative effect on the handling, making the car somewhat wayward and tough to predict. Most cars, including the reference car we scanned, appear to have addressed this by running narrow front tires - only 215mm tread width against 330mm rears - to keep the car in balance. It's a solution which appears to work quite well on our model too; the car loses some overall grip, perhaps, but the general balance is good and controllable. Do keep an eye on your tire temperatures with this one as the extra weight and narrow fronts mean it works the rubber at both ends more than the other Gr.4 cars. Hard slicks can often be the better choice here in a race as it will let you push harder for longer.

Our reference car had all the suspension links measured to copy into our model. The design there is all standard, double wishbone stuff with front roll center near the ground, rear RC about 8cm higher and similar motion up/down with chassis motion. Only noteworthy thing is that the steering geometry does follow the older design theory of large scrub radius with little mechanical trail; great for self-centering when catching slides but it does give a little 'delay' to the feel of mid-corner steering forces.

The real standout feature of 512BB LM is that bodywork. The angular shapes of the road car made for pretty poor top speed, and so it went to the Pininfarina wind tunnel for extensive redesign. The body was lengthened by 40cm, lines smoothed out and pulled down to the floor level, and a rear wing from the 312T2 F1 car added on for stability. Result of this work - aside from being, IMO, one of the most graceful GT car designs ever - were top speeds in the neighborhood of 195mph at Le Mans, a good 12-15mph up on the BMW M1 with similar power. 512BB LM may carry an extra 150kg, but it carries it up to a handy Vmax. Use that top speed to your advantage and it can compete well with the lighter-but-slower BMW M1 and the even-better-handling-but-even-slower Porsche 924 GTP.
Click to expand...

Hi Cluck - I enjoyed reading about the classic Ferraris so much that I wondered if there is something similar available about the Aston Martin DBR1/300. Shortly I will be hosting a series for these three cars and I think the competitors will be as interested as me in the technical differences between the Aston and the two Ferraris. I love the two Ferraris, but I like the Aston even more!
 
Sick Cylinder
Hi Cluck - I enjoyed reading about the classic Ferraris so much that I wondered if there is something similar available about the Aston Martin DBR1/300. Shortly I will be hosting a series for these three cars and I think the competitors will be as interested as me in the technical differences between the Aston and the two Ferraris. I love the two Ferraris, but I like the Aston even more!
Click to expand...
As far as I'm aware, Casey has only done these write-ups for the DLC content. Apparently he'd written 11 pages initially and had to condense that to what he posted today.
 
Sick Cylinder
Hi Cluck - I enjoyed reading about the classic Ferraris so much that I wondered if there is something similar available about the Aston Martin DBR1/300. Shortly I will be hosting a series for these three cars and I think the competitors will be as interested as me in the technical differences between the Aston and the two Ferraris. I love the two Ferraris, but I like the Aston even more!
Click to expand...

Here you go:

Hands up all who forgot this pack was hitting the street today. (raises hand)

Four new cars this month, covering a wide range of history. Here are a few notes on what we found during the physics development.

Aston Martin DBR1: Working on these very old, very rare cars is always a fun experiment in research. A book by Anthony Pritchard on Aston Martin’s post-war cars proved incredibly useful in learning about the development and history of this Le Mans winner. We were able to find decent data for the engine and (terrible*) Dave Brown CG537 gearbox. The 2922cc straight-6 is good for over 250hp at 6000rpm, which isn’t half bad for 1959 and is really great for a car that weighs less than 900kg. Gear ratios are very close between 4th and 5th, I think to keep it near the top of the power band during the shift on Mulsanne alone. Suspension is trailing link front and de Dion rear. The trailing link front gives no recovery of camber loss in roll and also induces a fair amount of bump steer because the motion of linkages is in different directions. Very different front end to all our other cars; feels weird and definitely comes across as old fashioned when you drive. Could also be that a full fuel tank hangs 150kg of liquid way out behind the rear axle! It definitely changes balance by more than a little as the fuel burns off.

*If Stirling Moss is on record complaining about it constantly sticking in gear and being very difficult to downshift, you know it's bad. We’ve represented this in game by increasing in each gear the damage acquired from a bad shift. Take care of it if you are going for a long run or it might become increasingly difficult to get a working gear.

A new tire is available for use on this car and the Mercedes 300SL. There would have been a ton of tire development from 1952 to 1959, but letting them use the same rubber helps equalize the two (a bit) so matchups could be done at the right tracks with the right drivers. Should be fun stuff.

Motion ratio = 1.0 all around (torsion bars on the trailing links. Using wheel rate keeps it simple)
Damper transition speed = 70mm/s all around


Aston Martin DBR1-2 LMP1: 50 year after the DBR1, the folks at AMR decided to build a car to celebrate their win and the DBR1-2 LMP1 was the result. What started life as a fairly traditional LMP1 chassis took advantage of a rule which allowed use of a ‘production’ GT1 engine with a larger air restrictor to compensate for the weight disadvantage. And a very impressive engine they did use. It was based on a unit from the DBR9 GT1 car but with a restrictor 15% larger, which meant it was good for 670hp or more in race spec. By our usual calculations, this unit unrestricted would be good for over 960hp! All that power means a medium-high downforce aero package made sense to use even at Le Mans; something which hasn't really been practical since 2009 as restrictor and boost reductions cut power quite a lot. You can run downforce levels in the middle and still pull near 340kph in a draft while feeling very nice and stable through the Porsche Curves. The default setup is good for over 4000lbf of downforce at 200mph. Impressive stuff. Rest of the car is pretty standard LMP1, but man that engine...Overall performance is very similar to the Audi R18 TDI.

Motion ratio = 1.0 all around
Damper transition speed, bump/rebound (mm/s) = 30/60 front, 40/80 rear


Aston Martin Vantage GTE: A lot could come from the V12 GT3 version as they aren't hugely different under the skin apart from the drivetrain differences. The 4.5L V8 is quite evolved over the road model’s 4.7L and would be good for 620hp unrestricted. It is also mounted much lower and further back than the V12, giving a weight distribution sitting right around the ideal 50:50. ACO balance of performance has it breathing through two 29.1mm restrictors which cut it down to about 450hp. It has run anywhere from 2x28.3mm to 2x29.4mm in the last couple of years, so we entered that as the range of adjustment a player can fiddle with. End result is output from 435-460hp. Surprisingly low for a car of this class, but it finds speed in other ways by being much lighter, more fuel efficient, and having a very efficient aero package. Low drag setup is good for 290kph and just under 14 laps at Le Mans on a 95L fuel tank - all consistent with data from this year's race - and lower top speeds around 255 and 240 at Spa and Silverstone, respectively, as you put downforce on. Good car to drive. Feels much more composed than the GT3 version thanks to being 80kg lighter with the smaller engine mounted so much lower in the car. Makes a nice contrast in that it is down maybe 70hp but overall is faster around nearly every track.

Motion ratio = 0.71 front, 0.77 rear
Damper transition speed, bump/rebound (mm/s) = 30/60 front, 50/95 rear


Mercedes 300SL W194: Engine is strong from 4000-6000rpm, peaking at 180hp near 5200rpm. Quite impressive for 1952. Rest of the car, maybe not so much. Very low drag bodywork, but that comes with a fair amount of aero lift. Like the DBR1, there is a big fuel tank slung way out back, so handling balance changes dramatically over the course of a fuel stint. Weight distribution changes by something like 10% rear to front as that burns off. Huge change!

Suspension design is very old fashioned. Zero caster, camber or steer axis inclination at the front means steering often feels quite vague, and the swing axle rear is responsible for some spooky handling. It combines the fun of very high camber change with a very high rear roll center. Not exactly a recipe for the most stable rear end. The designer made lots of notes on this and the very late prototype W194/11 was switched over to a low pivot swing axle which, while still suffering the extreme camber change, at least brings the roll center down and improves rear stability. Same idea works amazingly well in our model, and it's tempting to use that setup, even if not strictly accurate. Shame it never raced as they shifted focus to F1; the notes out there on W194/11 make it sound quite impressive and it probably would have been a strong contender for a second Le Mans win. 90kg lighter than before, 35hp more from direct fuel injection, less aero drag and the improved rear suspension design. Hard to argue against the success they had in the W196 F1 car though.

Motion ratio = 0.59 front, 0.72 rear spring, 0.55 rear damper
Damper transition speed = 150mm/s all around

Link:http://forum.projectcarsgame.com/sh...rtin-expansion&highlight=Physics+Aston+Martin

Don't forget that this was an PC1 DLC
 
I only had a little under an hour last night to look at some of the new stuff. I already knew Mugello from other games but it will be interesting to see it at different times of day and night.

The F355 Challenge cars were stable for the most part except I had some brake pulling in one direction a couple of times. That series seems pretty balanced.

I had a little problem with Fiorano at first. I wanted to test drive it first so I went out in the 250 TR. After the part where you go over the bridge and you're supposed to turn right, Since this was my first time in this car I didn't brake in time to make that right and I went straight down that embankment. Well I just turned right on the first patch of track I came to since I've never been on this track I didn't know which direction it ran. I drove around and passed the finish line but the clock kept going which I thought was strange. Ran about 3 laps or so but the time was over 3 minutes per lap which had me wondering why because I didn't think that track was that long and why did I have to pass the finish line twice in order to stop the clock. Exited that session and switched to the 458 whatever it is. This time I made sure to turn right over the bridge but didn't recognize a lot of this track at all. The reason for that was when I turned right before after going down that embankment I was running the track backwards. :lol: Can you do that in a test session without being warned that you're going the wrong way?
 
I'm going to get Slaughtered for saying this & you guys know I love this game but :)

I prefer Fiorano (& quite a lot of other tracks for that matter) over Mugello "gasp"

RUN AWAY..... run away.....

Joking aside, It's not that it's a bad track, it's just feels so repetitive. I feel lost, like I've done about 3laps when I've only done 1.

I've been on it alot in all sorts of cars & all the corners just feel like this gear or that gear, there's no variety as such.

I don't know maybe it'll grow on me, I'll keep at it & throw some weather in the mix to spice it up a bit.
 
Donnced
Here you go:

Hands up all who forgot this pack was hitting the street today. (raises hand)

Four new cars this month, covering a wide range of history. Here are a few notes on what we found during the physics development.

Aston Martin DBR1: Working on these very old, very rare cars is always a fun experiment in research. A book by Anthony Pritchard on Aston Martin’s post-war cars proved incredibly useful in learning about the development and history of this Le Mans winner. We were able to find decent data for the engine and (terrible*) Dave Brown CG537 gearbox. The 2922cc straight-6 is good for over 250hp at 6000rpm, which isn’t half bad for 1959 and is really great for a car that weighs less than 900kg. Gear ratios are very close between 4th and 5th, I think to keep it near the top of the power band during the shift on Mulsanne alone. Suspension is trailing link front and de Dion rear. The trailing link front gives no recovery of camber loss in roll and also induces a fair amount of bump steer because the motion of linkages is in different directions. Very different front end to all our other cars; feels weird and definitely comes across as old fashioned when you drive. Could also be that a full fuel tank hangs 150kg of liquid way out behind the rear axle! It definitely changes balance by more than a little as the fuel burns off.

*If Stirling Moss is on record complaining about it constantly sticking in gear and being very difficult to downshift, you know it's bad. We’ve represented this in game by increasing in each gear the damage acquired from a bad shift. Take care of it if you are going for a long run or it might become increasingly difficult to get a working gear.

A new tire is available for use on this car and the Mercedes 300SL. There would have been a ton of tire development from 1952 to 1959, but letting them use the same rubber helps equalize the two (a bit) so matchups could be done at the right tracks with the right drivers. Should be fun stuff.

Motion ratio = 1.0 all around (torsion bars on the trailing links. Using wheel rate keeps it simple)
Damper transition speed = 70mm/s all around


Aston Martin DBR1-2 LMP1: 50 year after the DBR1, the folks at AMR decided to build a car to celebrate their win and the DBR1-2 LMP1 was the result. What started life as a fairly traditional LMP1 chassis took advantage of a rule which allowed use of a ‘production’ GT1 engine with a larger air restrictor to compensate for the weight disadvantage. And a very impressive engine they did use. It was based on a unit from the DBR9 GT1 car but with a restrictor 15% larger, which meant it was good for 670hp or more in race spec. By our usual calculations, this unit unrestricted would be good for over 960hp! All that power means a medium-high downforce aero package made sense to use even at Le Mans; something which hasn't really been practical since 2009 as restrictor and boost reductions cut power quite a lot. You can run downforce levels in the middle and still pull near 340kph in a draft while feeling very nice and stable through the Porsche Curves. The default setup is good for over 4000lbf of downforce at 200mph. Impressive stuff. Rest of the car is pretty standard LMP1, but man that engine...Overall performance is very similar to the Audi R18 TDI.

Motion ratio = 1.0 all around
Damper transition speed, bump/rebound (mm/s) = 30/60 front, 40/80 rear


Aston Martin Vantage GTE: A lot could come from the V12 GT3 version as they aren't hugely different under the skin apart from the drivetrain differences. The 4.5L V8 is quite evolved over the road model’s 4.7L and would be good for 620hp unrestricted. It is also mounted much lower and further back than the V12, giving a weight distribution sitting right around the ideal 50:50. ACO balance of performance has it breathing through two 29.1mm restrictors which cut it down to about 450hp. It has run anywhere from 2x28.3mm to 2x29.4mm in the last couple of years, so we entered that as the range of adjustment a player can fiddle with. End result is output from 435-460hp. Surprisingly low for a car of this class, but it finds speed in other ways by being much lighter, more fuel efficient, and having a very efficient aero package. Low drag setup is good for 290kph and just under 14 laps at Le Mans on a 95L fuel tank - all consistent with data from this year's race - and lower top speeds around 255 and 240 at Spa and Silverstone, respectively, as you put downforce on. Good car to drive. Feels much more composed than the GT3 version thanks to being 80kg lighter with the smaller engine mounted so much lower in the car. Makes a nice contrast in that it is down maybe 70hp but overall is faster around nearly every track.

Motion ratio = 0.71 front, 0.77 rear
Damper transition speed, bump/rebound (mm/s) = 30/60 front, 50/95 rear


Mercedes 300SL W194: Engine is strong from 4000-6000rpm, peaking at 180hp near 5200rpm. Quite impressive for 1952. Rest of the car, maybe not so much. Very low drag bodywork, but that comes with a fair amount of aero lift. Like the DBR1, there is a big fuel tank slung way out back, so handling balance changes dramatically over the course of a fuel stint. Weight distribution changes by something like 10% rear to front as that burns off. Huge change!

Suspension design is very old fashioned. Zero caster, camber or steer axis inclination at the front means steering often feels quite vague, and the swing axle rear is responsible for some spooky handling. It combines the fun of very high camber change with a very high rear roll center. Not exactly a recipe for the most stable rear end. The designer made lots of notes on this and the very late prototype W194/11 was switched over to a low pivot swing axle which, while still suffering the extreme camber change, at least brings the roll center down and improves rear stability. Same idea works amazingly well in our model, and it's tempting to use that setup, even if not strictly accurate. Shame it never raced as they shifted focus to F1; the notes out there on W194/11 make it sound quite impressive and it probably would have been a strong contender for a second Le Mans win. 90kg lighter than before, 35hp more from direct fuel injection, less aero drag and the improved rear suspension design. Hard to argue against the success they had in the W196 F1 car though.

Motion ratio = 0.59 front, 0.72 rear spring, 0.55 rear damper
Damper transition speed = 150mm/s all around

Link:http://forum.projectcarsgame.com/sh...rtin-expansion&highlight=Physics+Aston+Martin

Don't forget that this was an PC1 DLC
Click to expand...

Thank you so much Donnced, I owe you one! If you are ever at Brands Hatch (my favourite haunt) I will treat you to a beer or burger!
 
An interesting thing that has been picked up on, from Casey's notes on the FxxK, in this thread

hkraft300
So pcars2 simulates active Aero...
Click to expand...
Casey Ringley
Yeah, based on various inputs like speed, braking/steering input, G forces, etc. It is hooked into the visual model then, too, so the wing position is synced up with where in the setting range the active aero model puts things.
Click to expand...

That whole thread is well worth a read as it happens, I'm sure it will open quite a few eyes as to the depth of the simulation underpinnings of the game.
 
I drove the 512 last night and it's more than a match for the BMW M1. If they would make the Porsche 944 more competitive that class could have some good three way battles. I still wonder how SMS figures out the numbers of particular cars in a class because I always run with a 23 car AI field. I was in a 512 and there were 5 other 512's and 1 single 944 which left 17 BMW's.
 

Similar threads

GTPNewsWire
Lamborghini and Formula X Feature in Latest Project CARS 2 Community Events
Replies
7
Views
2K
zr1chris
zr1chris
GTPNewsWire
Conquer the Green Hell in the Latest Project CARS 2 Community Event
Replies
2
Views
2K
MisterWaffles
MisterWaffles
GTPNewsWire
Go to Hell With the Latest Project CARS 2 Community Event
Replies
5
Views
2K
RomKnight
RomKnight
GTPNewsWire
Content Leak Reveals New Porsches for Project CARS 2
2 3
Replies
67
Views
12K
gladbecker82
gladbecker82
GTPNewsWire
Project CARS 2 PS4 Pro Enhancements Detailed
2 3
Replies
70
Views
13K
Harry Freq
Harry Freq

Latest Posts

Back