GP4 physics for 2009 season [RELEASED Ver.1.1 - 28 Apr 09, download link at pg.2]
Posted by Cyberacer
Hi everyone,
- after releasing earlier this year some preseason versions of GP4 2009 physics, it's since the Australian F1 race that I' ve been working and testing the first "regular season" version.
- This very first version is already well arranged and will offer real top speeds and lap times, based on qualification results of the F1 races at Melbourne and Sepang.
- For the time being I'm interested in the data that is adjusted in "GP4 Physics Editor" program, at the tab named "Chassis/General". Anything I have todate, is just estimations based on observing photos of real F1 cars.
So, any data that came in your attention, or data you have heard-read in interviews-statements-comments of people involved in F1, would be very helpful.
- The major concern is aerodynamics and downforce. The qualifications showed that it is much higher than the desired 50% of 2008 season. It is said that the teams have gained up to 80%. And this is a KEY for physics that get close to REALITY because:
-- We may achieve the REAL top speeds and lap times by many combinations of "downforce" and "tyre grip".
-- We can use "less downforce and more tyre grip" or "more downforce and less tyre grip".
-- The results are the same but the driving, the car setup and the whole gameplay are different.
-- Only one "pair" of downforce - tyre grip would be close to reality...
-- And given the downforce, I can adjust the tyre grip.
So I ask everyone to contribute and share herein any information available, for any data of the cars,
to help in making a better 2009 GP4.
_________________________
some of my GP4 works ...
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/28/2009 10:46PM by Cyberacer.
- after releasing earlier this year some preseason versions of GP4 2009 physics, it's since the Australian F1 race that I' ve been working and testing the first "regular season" version.
- This very first version is already well arranged and will offer real top speeds and lap times, based on qualification results of the F1 races at Melbourne and Sepang.
- For the time being I'm interested in the data that is adjusted in "GP4 Physics Editor" program, at the tab named "Chassis/General". Anything I have todate, is just estimations based on observing photos of real F1 cars.
So, any data that came in your attention, or data you have heard-read in interviews-statements-comments of people involved in F1, would be very helpful.
- The major concern is aerodynamics and downforce. The qualifications showed that it is much higher than the desired 50% of 2008 season. It is said that the teams have gained up to 80%. And this is a KEY for physics that get close to REALITY because:
-- We may achieve the REAL top speeds and lap times by many combinations of "downforce" and "tyre grip".
-- We can use "less downforce and more tyre grip" or "more downforce and less tyre grip".
-- The results are the same but the driving, the car setup and the whole gameplay are different.
-- Only one "pair" of downforce - tyre grip would be close to reality...
-- And given the downforce, I can adjust the tyre grip.
So I ask everyone to contribute and share herein any information available, for any data of the cars,
to help in making a better 2009 GP4.
_________________________
some of my GP4 works ...
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/28/2009 10:46PM by Cyberacer.
good news on the physics project!
i think that the "less downforce and more tyre grip" option is most realistic for 2009, because of the slick tyres and new wings.
X (@ed24f1)
i think that the "less downforce and more tyre grip" option is most realistic for 2009, because of the slick tyres and new wings.
X (@ed24f1)
well ... i think the issue is not downforce/tyregrip but the track data (magic-datas) that do not correspond to the standard mode of gp4 ... there is no default agreement (a limit) and this is prevents a job be used in the fullness that can offer ... this is my opinion, OK? :p
----signature--------------------------------------------------------
RELEASE => Physics (under FIA Technical Regulations)
MagicDatas? Setups? Pit Stop Strategies? Track Specific Performances? Up2Date GP?
Power Torque Curve? Where's this stuff? All download is available at ..
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2009 10:52PM by phantaman.
----signature--------------------------------------------------------
RELEASE => Physics (under FIA Technical Regulations)
MagicDatas? Setups? Pit Stop Strategies? Track Specific Performances? Up2Date GP?
Power Torque Curve? Where's this stuff? All download is available at ..
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2009 10:52PM by phantaman.
Atticus. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ive been testing your physics file for a while in
> barcelona.
>
> its very interesting and it makes a huge
> difference from the original, or from the previous
> years. with the original setup the car is more
> tricky to drive. it feels like a bit nervy. up to
> now ive managed to adjust the setup for my driving
> style, but i still have some problems with the
> back at the corner entrances.
>
> so i think the preseason version is kind of good
> for a start.
- Yes indeed, the car is more tricky to drive, because in 2009 we deal with a forward shift of CG and with more tyre grip due to the slicks. Also in 2009 the raise of grip in the front tires is larger than the raise of grip in the rear tires.
- I guess the problem with the rear of the car at entering corners is oversteering. If it is really so, set your differential settings at deccelerating to 6 and input torque (deccel) to 8, to bring it to neutral. These values are given as a general good values to start working your setup, since I don't know the version of Barcelona track you tested and its magic data.
- And given the opportunity, I have to say that phantaman is absolutely right about magic datas:
phantaman. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> well ... i think the issue is not downforce/tyregrip but the track data (magic-datas) that do not correspond to the standard mode of gp4 ...
> there is no default agreement (a limit) and this is prevents a job be used in the fullness that can offer ... this is my opinion, OK? :p
- The above is just the reason why I use only the tracks of the original 2002 GP4 game (magic datas) to develop my physics files. Also the original magic datas are something available to everyone and can be used as a STANDARD for our works. And with minor conversions they can fit to the new tracks.
- And after many many many ... hours of testing while developing the physics files versions for 2008 and 2009 seasons, I have to say that the 2002 GP4 magic datas in terms of REALITY, seem to me something exceptional - something almost perfect, that simulate very much the real track data, for the standards of GP4.
- Consider that for the development of GP4, Simergy or Microprose (or whatever) have closely cooperated with Arrows Formula One team. And the tracks' magic data is among the results of that cooperation.
- Since 2002, real F1 left many tracks and moved to new ones. And in many of the tracks that are still being used, were made changes to the initial layout. At the end, F1 uses today some tracks with the same 2002 layout. The original 2002 magic datas for these tracks, are still the best thing we have to work with, even if new tarmac has been paved on and has changed the grip.
- When I compiled the very first (beta-preseason) versions of 2009 physics and started testing to see the first outcome, I was very surprised to see right from the start, times close to real F1 testing predictions and watch the cars oversteer and run close to each other. So I think the magic data we have are really very good. I also have to admit that I was very impressed from the outcome of the AI cars, that benefited from the higher tyre grip and got out of the standard cc-lines in their efforts to overtake or defend their positions. And I thought to myself: GEOFF GRAMMOND REALLY DID A PERFECT JOB !!!
- (...back to thread) Any data to help me in compiling the first 2009 regular season physics version?
_________________________
some of my GP4 works ...
-------------------------------------------------------
> ive been testing your physics file for a while in
> barcelona.
>
> its very interesting and it makes a huge
> difference from the original, or from the previous
> years. with the original setup the car is more
> tricky to drive. it feels like a bit nervy. up to
> now ive managed to adjust the setup for my driving
> style, but i still have some problems with the
> back at the corner entrances.
>
> so i think the preseason version is kind of good
> for a start.
- Yes indeed, the car is more tricky to drive, because in 2009 we deal with a forward shift of CG and with more tyre grip due to the slicks. Also in 2009 the raise of grip in the front tires is larger than the raise of grip in the rear tires.
- I guess the problem with the rear of the car at entering corners is oversteering. If it is really so, set your differential settings at deccelerating to 6 and input torque (deccel) to 8, to bring it to neutral. These values are given as a general good values to start working your setup, since I don't know the version of Barcelona track you tested and its magic data.
- And given the opportunity, I have to say that phantaman is absolutely right about magic datas:
phantaman. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> well ... i think the issue is not downforce/tyregrip but the track data (magic-datas) that do not correspond to the standard mode of gp4 ...
> there is no default agreement (a limit) and this is prevents a job be used in the fullness that can offer ... this is my opinion, OK? :p
- The above is just the reason why I use only the tracks of the original 2002 GP4 game (magic datas) to develop my physics files. Also the original magic datas are something available to everyone and can be used as a STANDARD for our works. And with minor conversions they can fit to the new tracks.
- And after many many many ... hours of testing while developing the physics files versions for 2008 and 2009 seasons, I have to say that the 2002 GP4 magic datas in terms of REALITY, seem to me something exceptional - something almost perfect, that simulate very much the real track data, for the standards of GP4.
- Consider that for the development of GP4, Simergy or Microprose (or whatever) have closely cooperated with Arrows Formula One team. And the tracks' magic data is among the results of that cooperation.
- Since 2002, real F1 left many tracks and moved to new ones. And in many of the tracks that are still being used, were made changes to the initial layout. At the end, F1 uses today some tracks with the same 2002 layout. The original 2002 magic datas for these tracks, are still the best thing we have to work with, even if new tarmac has been paved on and has changed the grip.
- When I compiled the very first (beta-preseason) versions of 2009 physics and started testing to see the first outcome, I was very surprised to see right from the start, times close to real F1 testing predictions and watch the cars oversteer and run close to each other. So I think the magic data we have are really very good. I also have to admit that I was very impressed from the outcome of the AI cars, that benefited from the higher tyre grip and got out of the standard cc-lines in their efforts to overtake or defend their positions. And I thought to myself: GEOFF GRAMMOND REALLY DID A PERFECT JOB !!!
- (...back to thread) Any data to help me in compiling the first 2009 regular season physics version?
_________________________
some of my GP4 works ...
the standard magic-data has known problems on the fuel consumption and on tyre wear... is necessary get certain standard datas in other job's by mr. geoff crammond... combined these datas, everything will be 100% perfect. for example ... when increase the physics RPM's to 18/19000 the fuel consumption rises proportionately ... inspecting the previous data of gpx series can be noted that fuel consumption is much lower than the gp4... these data can be used on the same tracks and the best ... all are standard.
i will not deny that my stuff over the years has been copied (plagiarized), many here have never heard of me and believe that everything i say is based on stupid allegations... over this period i have been in the shadow of these people who earn the credits... but if the proposal is real and serious people are participating, i am inclined to cooperate...:D
Cyberacer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> - (...back to thread) Any data to help me in
> compiling the first 2009 regular season physics
> version?
therefore already helping ... search for data from the old F3000 chassis, why? if you can see the tool gp4phys (main tab) contains data compatible to the chassis of an F3000, and these are what's closest to the F1 chassis... :D
----signature--------------------------------------------------------
RELEASE => Physics (under FIA Technical Regulations)
MagicDatas? Setups? Pit Stop Strategies? Track Specific Performances? Up2Date GP?
Power Torque Curve? Where's this stuff? All download is available at ..
i will not deny that my stuff over the years has been copied (plagiarized), many here have never heard of me and believe that everything i say is based on stupid allegations... over this period i have been in the shadow of these people who earn the credits... but if the proposal is real and serious people are participating, i am inclined to cooperate...:D
Cyberacer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> - (...back to thread) Any data to help me in
> compiling the first 2009 regular season physics
> version?
therefore already helping ... search for data from the old F3000 chassis, why? if you can see the tool gp4phys (main tab) contains data compatible to the chassis of an F3000, and these are what's closest to the F1 chassis... :D
----signature--------------------------------------------------------
RELEASE => Physics (under FIA Technical Regulations)
MagicDatas? Setups? Pit Stop Strategies? Track Specific Performances? Up2Date GP?
Power Torque Curve? Where's this stuff? All download is available at ..
Shaddix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> these are the physics we use for the 2009 hotlap
> championship
>
> [racinggeneration.be]
> mance_physics.rar
>
> when putting only just enough effort in setup you
> do a 1:35.000 on Sepang (fastest during Qualifying
> last week was a 1:34.769)
>
> some data are based on the physics of phantaman,
> but we tried to put or vision of the 2009
> carfeeling in it
In these physics I see some numbers (e.g. the Rotational Inertias)
that stand very obviously far away from REALITY.
For a specific physics file is easy to edit the magic data of each track and adjust top speed by editing "air resistance" and then adjust lap time by editing "track grip". You can do that in every circuit but as I explained in my previous post, getting the same lap times does not mean at all that the physics and the magic data are close to REALITY.
Anyway, I am interested in testing these physics and I will post about afterwards.
Finally, I would like to ask once more about any REAL data that anyone may have.
_________________________
some of my GP4 works ...
-------------------------------------------------------
> these are the physics we use for the 2009 hotlap
> championship
>
> [racinggeneration.be]
> mance_physics.rar
>
> when putting only just enough effort in setup you
> do a 1:35.000 on Sepang (fastest during Qualifying
> last week was a 1:34.769)
>
> some data are based on the physics of phantaman,
> but we tried to put or vision of the 2009
> carfeeling in it
In these physics I see some numbers (e.g. the Rotational Inertias)
that stand very obviously far away from REALITY.
For a specific physics file is easy to edit the magic data of each track and adjust top speed by editing "air resistance" and then adjust lap time by editing "track grip". You can do that in every circuit but as I explained in my previous post, getting the same lap times does not mean at all that the physics and the magic data are close to REALITY.
Anyway, I am interested in testing these physics and I will post about afterwards.
Finally, I would like to ask once more about any REAL data that anyone may have.
_________________________
some of my GP4 works ...
away from reality? a small sample of free unreal data :p
PT - BR => amostra grátis pque hj estou bem humorado... :p
Cyberacer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> In these physics I see some numbers (e.g. the
> Rotational Inertias)
> that stand very obviously far away from REALITY.
>
> Anyway, I am interested in testing these physics
> and I will post about afterwards.
can you see above? omg... real data (from tyres) :p
Cyberacer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Finally, I would like to ask once more about any
> REAL data that anyone may have.
----signature--------------------------------------------------------
RELEASE => Physics (under FIA Technical Regulations)
MagicDatas? Setups? Pit Stop Strategies? Track Specific Performances? Up2Date GP?
Power Torque Curve? Where's this stuff? All download is available at ..
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2009 05:36PM by phantaman.
PT - BR => amostra grátis pque hj estou bem humorado... :p
Cyberacer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> In these physics I see some numbers (e.g. the
> Rotational Inertias)
> that stand very obviously far away from REALITY.
>
> Anyway, I am interested in testing these physics
> and I will post about afterwards.
can you see above? omg... real data (from tyres) :p
Cyberacer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Finally, I would like to ask once more about any
> REAL data that anyone may have.
----signature--------------------------------------------------------
RELEASE => Physics (under FIA Technical Regulations)
MagicDatas? Setups? Pit Stop Strategies? Track Specific Performances? Up2Date GP?
Power Torque Curve? Where's this stuff? All download is available at ..
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2009 05:36PM by phantaman.
i'm back ... "real datas" mean nothing if nobody knows how to correctly interpret and apply these :p
----signature--------------------------------------------------------
RELEASE => Physics (under FIA Technical Regulations)
MagicDatas? Setups? Pit Stop Strategies? Track Specific Performances? Up2Date GP?
Power Torque Curve? Where's this stuff? All download is available at ..
----signature--------------------------------------------------------
RELEASE => Physics (under FIA Technical Regulations)
MagicDatas? Setups? Pit Stop Strategies? Track Specific Performances? Up2Date GP?
Power Torque Curve? Where's this stuff? All download is available at ..
Cyberacer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> In these physics I see some numbers (e.g. the
> Rotational Inertias)
> that stand very obviously far away from REALITY.
>
> Anyway, I am interested in testing these physics and I will post about afterwards
phantaman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> away from reality? a small sample of free unreal
> data :p
>
> PT - BR => amostra grátis pque hj estou bem
> humorado... :p
> ...
> ...
>
> can you see above? omg... real data (from tyres)
> :p
> ...
- Well, As it is obvious, I only talked about the unreal rotational inertias and not for any tires or anything else.
SO, FOR WHAT IS THIS ALL ABOUT ???
- I just asked for any F1 data and not F3000.
- As for tires, F1 and F3000 rear tires seem to have the same dimensions, but the front tires are different: 270mm wide in F1 while 245mm wide in F3000.
So, PLEASE stick to the topic I set in the first post:
> Cyberacer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> - For the time being I'm interested in the data
> that is adjusted in "GP4 Physics Editor" program,
> at the tab named "Chassis/General".
or else, there is no need to continue this thread
_________________________
some of my GP4 works ...
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> In these physics I see some numbers (e.g. the
> Rotational Inertias)
> that stand very obviously far away from REALITY.
>
> Anyway, I am interested in testing these physics and I will post about afterwards
phantaman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> away from reality? a small sample of free unreal
> data :p
>
> PT - BR => amostra grátis pque hj estou bem
> humorado... :p
> ...
> ...
>
> can you see above? omg... real data (from tyres)
> :p
> ...
- Well, As it is obvious, I only talked about the unreal rotational inertias and not for any tires or anything else.
SO, FOR WHAT IS THIS ALL ABOUT ???
- I just asked for any F1 data and not F3000.
- As for tires, F1 and F3000 rear tires seem to have the same dimensions, but the front tires are different: 270mm wide in F1 while 245mm wide in F3000.
So, PLEASE stick to the topic I set in the first post:
> Cyberacer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> - For the time being I'm interested in the data
> that is adjusted in "GP4 Physics Editor" program,
> at the tab named "Chassis/General".
or else, there is no need to continue this thread
_________________________
some of my GP4 works ...
Cyberacer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> - Well, As it is obvious, I only talked about the
> unreal rotational inertias and not for any tires
> or anything else.
> SO, FOR WHAT IS THIS ALL ABOUT ???
but then ... the question was not about if someone has reliable datas? :p
Cyberacer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> - I just asked for any F1 data and not F3000.
> - As for tires, F1 and F3000 rear tires seem to
> have the same dimensions, but the front tires are
> different: 270mm wide in F1 while 245mm wide in
> F3000.
well ... may i have not been understood ... old F3000 has dimensions close to an F1 chassi which i can describe:
- as in Formula One, 25mm of foam padding must be fitted around the driver’s legs;
- headrest areas will be brought into line with the current Formula One requirements;
- all bodywork dimensions will now be the same as Formula One;
- suspension symmetry requirements are now the same as Formula One;
- wheel sizes are now the same as Formula One;
- cockpit sizes and chassis dimensions are now brought into line with the latest Formula One designs.
only quoted some not all, OK? and about a "modern" F1 chassi, there are datas from a PROST AP03/04 "por aí"... :p
----signature--------------------------------------------------------
RELEASE => Physics (under FIA Technical Regulations)
MagicDatas? Setups? Pit Stop Strategies? Track Specific Performances? Up2Date GP?
Power Torque Curve? Where's this stuff? All download is available at ..
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2009 11:46PM by phantaman.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> - Well, As it is obvious, I only talked about the
> unreal rotational inertias and not for any tires
> or anything else.
> SO, FOR WHAT IS THIS ALL ABOUT ???
but then ... the question was not about if someone has reliable datas? :p
Cyberacer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> - I just asked for any F1 data and not F3000.
> - As for tires, F1 and F3000 rear tires seem to
> have the same dimensions, but the front tires are
> different: 270mm wide in F1 while 245mm wide in
> F3000.
well ... may i have not been understood ... old F3000 has dimensions close to an F1 chassi which i can describe:
- as in Formula One, 25mm of foam padding must be fitted around the driver’s legs;
- headrest areas will be brought into line with the current Formula One requirements;
- all bodywork dimensions will now be the same as Formula One;
- suspension symmetry requirements are now the same as Formula One;
- wheel sizes are now the same as Formula One;
- cockpit sizes and chassis dimensions are now brought into line with the latest Formula One designs.
only quoted some not all, OK? and about a "modern" F1 chassi, there are datas from a PROST AP03/04 "por aí"... :p
----signature--------------------------------------------------------
RELEASE => Physics (under FIA Technical Regulations)
MagicDatas? Setups? Pit Stop Strategies? Track Specific Performances? Up2Date GP?
Power Torque Curve? Where's this stuff? All download is available at ..
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2009 11:46PM by phantaman.
n00binio Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cyberacer schrieb:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > > In these physics I see some numbers (e.g. the
> > > Rotational Inertias)
> > > that stand very obviously far away from
> > REALITY.
>
>
> what leads you to that assumption? do you know
> what rotational inertia is, which car properties
> it depends on?
- Well, rotational inertias (=moments or inertia) depend on the mass distribution all over the car and the distance of every "piece" of mass from the rotational axis.
- Every 3d object with mass has three moments of inertia, each one in reference with each axis (x,y and z). These axis meet in the center of mass of the object.
- The contibution of every mass "piece" to the total amount of inertia is its mass (m) multiplied by the square of its distance (R) from the rotational axis in reference. "Piece"inertia: I=m*R²
- Anyone who wants to find more, may start from here:
[en.wikipedia.org]
- The values in discussion are 1438.492kg*m², 1748.379kg*m² and 309.987kg*m² and they are very very HIGH to be true for a F1 car with a mass of only 605 kg.
To have such high values, the car's mass sould be distributed and located VERY AWAY from the axis.
To get an idea, imagine a solid metal circle = a metal ring that has a mass of 605kg. If it's highest rotational inertia value is 1748.379, then it's diameter is 3.40 meters, meaning that every "piece" of mass is located 1.7 meters away from the rotational axis in difference.
In a F1 car, only a part of the tires and the front/rear wings are located in a similar distance. Everything else is much closer to the centre of mass and contributes much less to the rotational inertia.
In original 2002 GP4 the highest rotational inertia was 649kg*m². To raise it we have to move all "pieces" of mass, very much OUTWARDS. Impossible and meaningless...
(quote from wikipedia)
"The moment of inertia of an object about a given axis describes how difficult it is to change its angular motion about that axis"
That's why F1 teams try to keep low the rotational inertia around the vertical axis, to make the car more responsive in steering wheel inputs.
As you see, I know very well what I talk about rotational inertias.
Besides, I'm an aircaft engineer.
_________________________
some of my GP4 works ...
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2009 04:11PM by Cyberacer.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cyberacer schrieb:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > > In these physics I see some numbers (e.g. the
> > > Rotational Inertias)
> > > that stand very obviously far away from
> > REALITY.
>
>
> what leads you to that assumption? do you know
> what rotational inertia is, which car properties
> it depends on?
- Well, rotational inertias (=moments or inertia) depend on the mass distribution all over the car and the distance of every "piece" of mass from the rotational axis.
- Every 3d object with mass has three moments of inertia, each one in reference with each axis (x,y and z). These axis meet in the center of mass of the object.
- The contibution of every mass "piece" to the total amount of inertia is its mass (m) multiplied by the square of its distance (R) from the rotational axis in reference. "Piece"inertia: I=m*R²
- Anyone who wants to find more, may start from here:
[en.wikipedia.org]
- The values in discussion are 1438.492kg*m², 1748.379kg*m² and 309.987kg*m² and they are very very HIGH to be true for a F1 car with a mass of only 605 kg.
To have such high values, the car's mass sould be distributed and located VERY AWAY from the axis.
To get an idea, imagine a solid metal circle = a metal ring that has a mass of 605kg. If it's highest rotational inertia value is 1748.379, then it's diameter is 3.40 meters, meaning that every "piece" of mass is located 1.7 meters away from the rotational axis in difference.
In a F1 car, only a part of the tires and the front/rear wings are located in a similar distance. Everything else is much closer to the centre of mass and contributes much less to the rotational inertia.
In original 2002 GP4 the highest rotational inertia was 649kg*m². To raise it we have to move all "pieces" of mass, very much OUTWARDS. Impossible and meaningless...
(quote from wikipedia)
"The moment of inertia of an object about a given axis describes how difficult it is to change its angular motion about that axis"
That's why F1 teams try to keep low the rotational inertia around the vertical axis, to make the car more responsive in steering wheel inputs.
As you see, I know very well what I talk about rotational inertias.
Besides, I'm an aircaft engineer.
_________________________
some of my GP4 works ...
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2009 04:11PM by Cyberacer.
Cyberacer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> - The values in discussion are 1438.492kg*m²,
> 1748.379kg*m² and 309.987kg*m² and they are
> very very HIGH to be true for a F1 car with a mass
> of only 605 kg.
the information i have is that a car loaded with fuel and ready to race and without pilot is 695KG ... if the standard chassi weight are approximate 585KG (without driver and fuel), 605KG (described in regulation as minimum weight in qualifying/practice sessions) logically can not be considered for purposes of calculating and it is obviously to anyone who is not only that (605KG)!
Cyberacer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> To have such high values, the car's mass sould be
> distributed and located VERY AWAY from the axis.
> To get an idea, imagine a solid metal circle = a
> metal ring that has a mass of 605kg. If it's
> highest rotational inertia value is 1748.379, then
> it's diameter is 3.40 meters, meaning that every
> "piece" of mass is located 1.7 meters away from
> the rotational axis in difference.
see above... ;p
Cyberacer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> In a F1 car, only a part of the tires and the
> front/rear wings are located in a similar
> distance. Everything else is much closer to the
> centre of mass and contributes much less to the
> rotational inertia.
> In original 2002 GP4 the highest rotational
> inertia was 649kg*m². To raise it we have to move
> all "pieces" of mass, very much OUTWARDS.
> Impossible and meaningless...
this was in 2002 ... from there to here 7 years have passed and this is an "eternity" in terms of F1 :p
Cyberacer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> (quote from wikipedia)
> "The moment of inertia of an object about a given
> axis describes how difficult it is to change its
> angular motion about that axis"
> That's why F1 teams try to keep low the rotational
> inertia around the vertical axis, to make the car
> more responsive in steering wheel inputs.
>
> As you see, I know very well what I talk about
> rotational inertias.
> Besides, I'm an aircaft engineer.
review concepts ... from theory pass to practice immediately... in a moment of my life i was an industrial chemist with expertise in physics and mathematics ... but we are not here to talk about it right? here (in GPG.org) we are just enthusiasts of gpx series. :p
[] 's
----signature--------------------------------------------------------
RELEASE => Physics (under FIA Technical Regulations)
MagicDatas? Setups? Pit Stop Strategies? Track Specific Performances? Up2Date GP?
Power Torque Curve? Where's this stuff? All download is available at ..
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2009 06:27PM by phantaman.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> - The values in discussion are 1438.492kg*m²,
> 1748.379kg*m² and 309.987kg*m² and they are
> very very HIGH to be true for a F1 car with a mass
> of only 605 kg.
the information i have is that a car loaded with fuel and ready to race and without pilot is 695KG ... if the standard chassi weight are approximate 585KG (without driver and fuel), 605KG (described in regulation as minimum weight in qualifying/practice sessions) logically can not be considered for purposes of calculating and it is obviously to anyone who is not only that (605KG)!
Cyberacer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> To have such high values, the car's mass sould be
> distributed and located VERY AWAY from the axis.
> To get an idea, imagine a solid metal circle = a
> metal ring that has a mass of 605kg. If it's
> highest rotational inertia value is 1748.379, then
> it's diameter is 3.40 meters, meaning that every
> "piece" of mass is located 1.7 meters away from
> the rotational axis in difference.
see above... ;p
Cyberacer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> In a F1 car, only a part of the tires and the
> front/rear wings are located in a similar
> distance. Everything else is much closer to the
> centre of mass and contributes much less to the
> rotational inertia.
> In original 2002 GP4 the highest rotational
> inertia was 649kg*m². To raise it we have to move
> all "pieces" of mass, very much OUTWARDS.
> Impossible and meaningless...
this was in 2002 ... from there to here 7 years have passed and this is an "eternity" in terms of F1 :p
Cyberacer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> (quote from wikipedia)
> "The moment of inertia of an object about a given
> axis describes how difficult it is to change its
> angular motion about that axis"
> That's why F1 teams try to keep low the rotational
> inertia around the vertical axis, to make the car
> more responsive in steering wheel inputs.
>
> As you see, I know very well what I talk about
> rotational inertias.
> Besides, I'm an aircaft engineer.
review concepts ... from theory pass to practice immediately... in a moment of my life i was an industrial chemist with expertise in physics and mathematics ... but we are not here to talk about it right? here (in GPG.org) we are just enthusiasts of gpx series. :p
[] 's
----signature--------------------------------------------------------
RELEASE => Physics (under FIA Technical Regulations)
MagicDatas? Setups? Pit Stop Strategies? Track Specific Performances? Up2Date GP?
Power Torque Curve? Where's this stuff? All download is available at ..
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2009 06:27PM by phantaman.
@ phantaman:
my post above is just an answer to n00binio's concerns about me:
n00binio Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what leads you to that assumption? do you know
> what rotational inertia is, which car properties
> it depends on?
So I had to give some data about this, even some related with my real life studies and proffesion.
Apart from that, I agree with you that racing mass of a car is up to 695kg.
But the difference 695-605=95kg is mainly fuel that is located in the center of the car, around the center of mass. So, don't expect a much higher value in rotational inertias due to these 95kgs, since they don't have a large distance (R) from the center of mass.
At the end, we are all indeed enthusiasts of F1 and gpx series and each one contributes with the way he can, in making GP4 better.
And when it come to physics, each one may approache this theme in a different way and get to different conclusions and configurations.
It is OK for me and I really think that it is also better for the community of GP4, as the fans have more options available to choose from.
_________________________
some of my GP4 works ...
my post above is just an answer to n00binio's concerns about me:
n00binio Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what leads you to that assumption? do you know
> what rotational inertia is, which car properties
> it depends on?
So I had to give some data about this, even some related with my real life studies and proffesion.
Apart from that, I agree with you that racing mass of a car is up to 695kg.
But the difference 695-605=95kg is mainly fuel that is located in the center of the car, around the center of mass. So, don't expect a much higher value in rotational inertias due to these 95kgs, since they don't have a large distance (R) from the center of mass.
At the end, we are all indeed enthusiasts of F1 and gpx series and each one contributes with the way he can, in making GP4 better.
And when it come to physics, each one may approache this theme in a different way and get to different conclusions and configurations.
It is OK for me and I really think that it is also better for the community of GP4, as the fans have more options available to choose from.
_________________________
some of my GP4 works ...
i was thinking about during the break to update this interface (forum) ... i understand your lack of this estimates values as high ... a modern F1 chassi is a monocoque (and is not?)... if this is considered as a basis for calculations will be possible to obtain values close to those found, otherwise will be (values) that we all believe be compatible (more acceptable) to current reality :p
----signature--------------------------------------------------------
RELEASE => Physics (under FIA Technical Regulations)
MagicDatas? Setups? Pit Stop Strategies? Track Specific Performances? Up2Date GP?
Power Torque Curve? Where's this stuff? All download is available at ..
----signature--------------------------------------------------------
RELEASE => Physics (under FIA Technical Regulations)
MagicDatas? Setups? Pit Stop Strategies? Track Specific Performances? Up2Date GP?
Power Torque Curve? Where's this stuff? All download is available at ..
phantaman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... a modern F1 chassi is a monocoque (and is not?)
> ... if this is considered as a basis for calculations
> will be possible to obtain values close to those found,
> otherwise will be (values) that we all believe be
> compatible (more acceptable) to current reality :p
I suppose that you refer to these values:
1438.492kg*m², 1748.379kg*m² and 309.987kg*m².
If so, it would be initerested not only for me but for many others also, if you could publish any of your calculations that lead to these values.
Would show us the way you approach technically this theme and would really help understanding why you do it this way.
_________________________
some of my GP4 works ...
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... a modern F1 chassi is a monocoque (and is not?)
> ... if this is considered as a basis for calculations
> will be possible to obtain values close to those found,
> otherwise will be (values) that we all believe be
> compatible (more acceptable) to current reality :p
I suppose that you refer to these values:
1438.492kg*m², 1748.379kg*m² and 309.987kg*m².
If so, it would be initerested not only for me but for many others also, if you could publish any of your calculations that lead to these values.
Would show us the way you approach technically this theme and would really help understanding why you do it this way.
_________________________
some of my GP4 works ...
hehe, i just wanted to check if you know what you're speking about. obviously you do so you may go on with your discussion
when comparing the physics file to gp3 physics i thought the values were a bit high, too. but i think playability is most important so i don't care about it that much. in addition i'm not sure on how gp4 handles these values, maybe not 100% accurate.
btw it is impossible to calculate the inertias in a finite time for an f1 car
used to be GPGSL's Nick Heidfeld
when comparing the physics file to gp3 physics i thought the values were a bit high, too. but i think playability is most important so i don't care about it that much. in addition i'm not sure on how gp4 handles these values, maybe not 100% accurate.
btw it is impossible to calculate the inertias in a finite time for an f1 car
used to be GPGSL's Nick Heidfeld
n00binio Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...
> in addition i'm not sure on how gp4 handles these values,
> maybe not 100% accurate.
> ...
It is the same for all of us.
The truth is that we do not know the physic and kinematic function/equation that combines all the physics data with the forces applied to the car and calculates its motion.
But even if we had it, I guess it would be very complicated to handle it...
_________________________
some of my GP4 works ...
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...
> in addition i'm not sure on how gp4 handles these values,
> maybe not 100% accurate.
> ...
It is the same for all of us.
The truth is that we do not know the physic and kinematic function/equation that combines all the physics data with the forces applied to the car and calculates its motion.
But even if we had it, I guess it would be very complicated to handle it...
_________________________
some of my GP4 works ...
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.