Shouldn't there be some sort of punishment (tyre clipping through the model)

Do they use them on F1 cars?
Is that what hit Massa in da face?

 

Yea, im nowhere near to it to know for a fact. The visual of the clipping just emphasized my notion, but i'll take your word for it. I'm sure you guys would know.

Thx for the reply

 

Sometimes..there are as many design solutions in F1 as there are cars

Not exactly. Massa took a rear main heave spring iirc. This is one of the design seen around those years. The heave spring here is in fact 3 stage (1 main , 2 helper, probably a rubber stop as well in there...) endless possibilities.

 

Fanatec V10 brake pedal^^.

 

Car horizontal when stationary means during driving with a lot more downforce on the rear, you start pointing the nose up as speed grows, which irl is serious risk of take-off. I am aware of having of effects on diffusers and that is why best ride height on rear is always bit lower on cars fitted with diffuser. irl you never want to have rear ride height go lower than front, most tracks have bumps, curbs etc. So you will need to setup to get car horizontal at topspeed, NOT when it is stationary! Or risk doing the famous mercedes lemans back flip... (and some other examples when you search bit on youtube ).

There is a difference between using packers and bypassing your suspension system completely and using solely packers as your suspension system. In racing sims i never seen one getting it correct when it comes to using the packers as part of suspension, it is perfect to get suspension little bit softer and use the packers from bottoming out in au rouge and at top speed. So in au rouge in fact riding the packers, since the car is "pressed down" so hard to the track it does not matter it has no real spring/damper system working. The pressure will make the tyres grip the track anyway.
But simple settings springs to minimum is ridiculous, it feels like hardcoding to give higher grip in relation to lower spring-setting, disregarding whatever else is happening.

I tested max splitter and lower splitter settings, highest setting works best, possible other suspension settings can improve matters, and/or diffuser is giving magic amounts of downforce, or something else. I think i did write down i only spent 60 minutes on some testing?


"trying to find laptime on lowest softest everything have fun with it" That is exactly the point of this thread and it seems to be the truth in AC at current patchlevel for at least multiple types of cars.

 

It's great that you mention static ride height cause on 4-2 wings the Corvette nose actually dives down more than the rear at high speed, contrary to what you assume.

What you are doing when setting it up to ride on the packers all the time is actually simulating a main/helper spring setup. This exists and works both in real life and in AC. Just look at the BWM Z4 GT3 it's like that by default on the rear.

By splitter too low I meant in height. In AC, splitter(diffuser also) going too close to the ground will stop producing DF, giving you that high speed understeer.

You spent 60 minutes and here are some people having many more hours telling you the conclusion that "softest-lowest is fastest" is wrong, giving you a big nice way out of a setup dead end...

 

This looks like good explanation:
http://www.superstreetonline.com/how-to/chassis-suspension/modp-1104-the-bump-stops-here/

"t's great that you mention static ride height cause on 4-2 wings the Corvette nose actually dives down more than the rear at high speed, contrary to what you assume."
Yes because, in AC it is apparently OK to have rear dynamic ride-height getting lower than front, making it possible to make excellent use of the diffuser.
I simplied googled for examples you, showing nascars and F1 cars not being setup like that:
Redbull is most extreme in having rear-end of the car really set to high:
https://www.formula1.com/content/fo...nt/manual_gallery_2/image1.img.640.medium.jpg
Without the 50-60HP power shortage they would power from victory to victory with this design.
Merecedes has similar setup too but less extreme:
http://www.benzinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Mercedes-AMG-Petronas-F1.jpg


With the packers Again, AC is too simple, simply slam your normal springs to minimum and ride the packers which you can set to the minimum allowed and set minimum ride height. Gives same speed as ridiculously well tweaked, tested, tweaked, retested, tweaked setup. Why not remove the springs entirely and just ride your packers? Or better there is no use for setup options since there aren't any.

"You spent 60 minutes and here are some people having many more hours telling you the conclusion that "softest-lowest is fastest" is wrong, giving you a big nice way out of a setup dead end..."
You are really starting to annoy me.

 

^this

Stefano just mentioned in stream that movement of other cars will be improved in next patch, which should make clear that MP opponents are just a rough representation.

 

Thank you for the lesson on

- What is a bump stop?

Thank you for the google images showing

- F1 cars running high rake.


Needed it badly. Will now run all cars min height min springs, looking forward to gaining 1 sec per lap.

 

F1 cars have radical, weird, suspension configurations now, you really can't compare them to anything else.

I remember the Williams FW31 coming to iRacing and people asking why there were no rear spring options in the configurator, the answer was it didn't have any, just dampers and a roll bar iirc. Recently they seem to be running huge amounts of rake. I've never see the cars running so high at the rear in 35 years of watching F1, the rear setup also looks incredibly soft, you can see the suspension movement.

 

Real life low rear ride height +bump=take-off




hmm
Look at the first onboard vid of this youtube video:

It shows simular movement to modern F1 cars, nothing new there
Another old one:



some suspension formula one/formula classes:

even better visible here:


and came across a vid explaining why the wingless groundeffect formula one car in the past who went to far with it and it did not work, apparently in gt2 class in assetto corsa running nearly no wings lets you still achieve rather excellent laptimes while riding your packers. Although not record breaking, getting laps into 2:17.xx is not difficult. Which is, off-course, rubbish. As well known irl your car will take off(literally) which such setups at high speeds as demonstrated by formula 3 recently on au rouge, a nice porsche lemans car, mercedes lemans class(they had several take offs in one lemans race/sessions several years ago to due design/setup errors on rear-suspension). Only problem is with flying cars, touch down pieces tent to break the car, some parts tent to be reduced in size, some are reduces up to full meter and you end up, usually, with 70% of your car left.

According to this wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_FW31
The FW31 did have springs at the rear
And here some guy trying to figure out how it exactly works:
http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=21566
I see: heavy spring, dampers, anti-rollbar... The guy is explaining very stiff suspension is way to go, as noted before, this did not work and all formula one teams went back to slightly softer compromise and are no longer using this design to make the suspension as stiff as possible, where Red Bull went to the most extreme end.

In the past teams might have tried suspensions without springs, no wings, V16 engines etc. In the end in all came back to dampers, double wishbones, wings, never more than 12 cylinder engines etc.. Until someone discovers something new that works better.

(do not get me wrong, i like AC very much, but pretending it is perfect... sorry i will never agree)

 

Whit?^^

 

Ah good ol CC Lol, Too bad he had to have a mental break down and quit modding. The dude was the quickest F1 modeler ive ever heard about.