As the title says, the straight line speed increases a lot when you increase rear ride height. I dont pretend to know anything about car setups but shouldnt more rake increase drag and slow it? But even if thats not right, i would say the effect on the speed is WAY over the top.
Is the dynamic rake extreme, or the static setup values? (ie what's the rake when actually nearing top speed, and in comparison to a more normal setup)
I assume i would need something to measure dynamic rake? I appreciate that accurate data would be beneficial to this, however i dont have it It was another user who commented on this in discord and afaik it got no acknowledgement from the devs, so i posted this here in the hopes it would get looked at. I did a rudimentary test just on the speed at portland just now, out of the final corner on the pit limiter and accelerating to a line on the track around the (awful) chicane. On default setup 8.5 at the front 8.5 at the rear the speed at the line was 228kph, with the rear on max at 13.0 the speed was 236kph. Like i said i really know nothing about car setups, am i wrong in thinking it should actually negatively effect straight line speed with the rear jacked right up (as long as the floor not scraping along the ground on the lower setting)?
You are not wrong. Higher rear generally means more drag. This thing exists on some GT3 cars as well.
I don't have the car so was asking more out of curiosity. Setup rake will very rarely equate directly to dynamic rake, but you would probably expect the rear to end up being higher to some extent. You can probably check using telemetry (like Motec via DAMPlugin) if you're that curious. Depending on springs and bump rubbers and aero settings a particular setup (with maximum available rear ride height) may or may not move far enough away from optimum rake (which I think is always zero for drag purposes) to be a disadvantage (underbody drag tends to decrease with increased ride height, so there's a tradeoff there). It indeed doesn't 'feel' right, especially to give such a difference in top speed.
The exploit is basically highest possible static rear ride height and pile on as much rear vertical stiffness as you can to maintain a higher rake. Front you want low of course, but may need to go higher to maintain a decent balance. For some of the GT3 cars, this approach doesn't work too well on tracks with high speed corners due to way too much front balance, but for tracks like Monza they almost become OP (assuming BOP is balanced). It really shouldn't exist as drag would be crazy high and downforce would most certainly stall to some extent.
It’d be nice if the recent honeymoon that was the labelling of bug-reports with a coloured flag to denote their status could be more consistent then. It’s demoralising to report potential bugs here (especially long standing ones) and see no official response….
Yea no, the speed difference is too much (assuming you did similar runs). Higher rake would not result in higher top speed at all. and i doubt these car scraps the ground at lowest rear ride height. I wonder if this is shortcoming of rf2 aero model, they just can't get it right the first time. gt cars took multiple revisions , now hopefully gte cars are finally matches their irl counterpart.
I guess you dont have the car, but if you do you can see immediately the problem. The Q50 also has it, but i only did about half a lap trying it as it was undriveable, I dont know if you can tune it to make it viable but i wasnt racing it so i didnt bother trying. The Toyota though its a big advantage (to me) on every track i tried it on. For example the race of the season qualifying i did 1:30.8 with the ride height 'exploit', while running a more normal setup i did a low 32. Admittedly i could shave more time off that with more effort but i wasnt going to focus on it when its miles slower.
I think you interpreted my comment wrong, i'm agreeing with you. high rake should not result in higher top speed.
It's not a shortcoming of the aero model. Likely just something that has been overlooked. Although I've seen on my own projects that drag can sometimes behave and show different values from on-track data compared to what the physics sheet put out. Not really tried looking into what this might be.
That is interesting.must be similar case here. generally when you pay for dlc you expect it to go through a proper testing before being put on sale. testing rake to drag is quite easy, so it should have been easy spot. especially when you have all channels available
