Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

The barrier is pretty much in the worst possible place, but it's where it needs to be to create the run off and define that part of the track.

The bumpy braking zone is definitely the problem but I agree with sav man, its not supposed to be easy.

IMO make the barrier as effective as possible at absorbing impact and leave those bump strips out of the inside of the chicane to stop cars getting airborne

I like Brundle and Coulthard. They bring intimate knowledge of driving, the tracks and the rules for some good commentary. It must be annoying for them to have to constantly cater to the newest f1 fans though when it comes to explaining things.

Monaco track seems to have not only bumps but things like manhole covers and drains (or things that look like them) all over it. Imagine trying to brake under 4-5 G's then sliding across them. It's a prestigious track but it begs for some big crashes.

Brundle has been losing his shit for a while now. Rambles on all the time and misses some of the most blatantly obvious stuff. Can see him being phased out soon

areed. in the massa (or perez) crash he kept going on about the right rear wheel not being held by the tethers in the crash. I immediately saw it was the left front TYRE that had come flying down (as evidenced by the left front wheel hanging of the car sans tyre) not the right rear wheel and tyre. sure enough when they lifted the car up, 4 wheels attached, only 3 tyres. with all the footage and info they have how do they so constantly stuff things up. he was all excited about pointing out a tether failure which didn't happen. the tyre burst off the rime which was probably more interesting anyway...

maybe he feels without murray walker there talking nonsense it's his turn to be the old fool...

It's part of the charicter of the track, doing stuff like that is how we end up with tilk tracks. It's the most prestigious race to win, it's not meant to be easy. Being a temp street circuit it would probably be easier to move the barrier anyway.

agreed. leave it alone. if 20 out of 22 drivers can manage going over it probably 150 times per race meet and the other 2 go over it 100 times but fk it up once that tells me it's fine as it is. smoothing shit out removes character. sure the tracks have to be driveable but they don't have to be easy. what if they removed what was left of the dipper at bathurst or what about the top of eau rogue where you turn into radillon? that's a crest and car gets light and tries to spit you off. that's what makes tracks interesting.

That bump in the road that they hit just as they enter the braking zone seems to be the cause of all the problems.

It's much smoother in GT5 ^_^

But the ripple-strips at the Pool chicane are hideously violent =[

louie really seems like the only guy thats going to do any damage to that points lead

carn bro, do it for the fans

Skybet sees it as all sewn up already- Lewis is paying $10 to win the title, whereas Seb's a mere $1.13. Say it ain't so :(

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...