Will rF2 have brake fade/failure or tired engines in longer races?

Maybe I didn't make myself clear in the post that initiated this. You may forgive me since I'm not a native English speaker.
It should be obvious however, that you don't brake into a hard turn by using your gears only. That in fact is total nonsense.
I do brake of course but I'm also using the engine to support braking and minimise the way to slow down to the desired speed.
Anybody who thinks you can do this without braking is a fool.

I've just sent a message with a link to this thread to a guy I know, who is driving the CCTV Predator Ferrari F430 GT3 in the British GT Championship. I was simply asking him, if engine braking is mandatory.
He's usually very busy, if we're lucky, I'll post his answer here soon. Then we will know for sure.

 

Ok, guys! I'll post the question I just asked the guy followed by his answer.

Me:
I'm sorry. I didn't use the appropriate word. Everybody on the forum is arguing, wether to use the engine/ gears to brake or if you should use the wheel brakes more than engine braking? Some guy claims that no one in real racing ever uses the engine to slow down the car, because it will basically mess up your gearbox. I always thought you do need to use the engine to maximise overall braking performance.

Adam Wilcox:
Adam Wilcox
Yes you are correct. The other guy is talking bollocks ! Also engine braking creates more 'rake' in the car so better braking. I.e. more weight transfer to front
38 minutes ago

 

Okay...slowly we have every opinion underlined by some sources and people with racing experience and so on. Besides from the view that you can brake by only using gears, I guess nobody is still this opinion. Would be interesting, what is the right answer in the end. Some engineer would be nice...contacts to Adrian Newey anyone?
But in the end, doesn´t matter. Slaming down the brake and shifting down gear for gear with a nice blip is still the best way to do, there are other reasons for allways having the right gear at hand aswell.

By the way...would be even more interesting when we throw in front wheel and back wheel drive, than it gets even more complex =p

 

Never said you sould brake without downshifting

It makes a huge difference to the car balance, and in every racecar, but especially in formula one cars it´s really important to find the right balance.

And anyone who drove a racecar with a small and a big brake (or even a streetcar) on a track will now that the brakes make the big difference, not the engine brake. There might be influence of the engine brake, no question, especially to the balance. But not like "half the distance" or anything similar. Brakes are doing the main braking, for sure, not engine braking like some people say here...

 

Yes it was a general statement because the specifics are mod dependant. I've seen mods with no ramp or drop-off and I've seen mods with a huge ramp and drop-off. You are right in describing the trapezoid but the specifics aren't really relevant, just wanted to make it clear that brake failure and brake fade are part of rF1.

 

LesiU is actually describing rFactor 1 brake fade (trapezoid) in the post you pointed to of his, not reality.

 

But even this reality can be implemented into rf1. I was just saying that those 2 lines where temperature is not ideal does not have to be linear. It can be 3x faster than linear or 2x slower etc.

 

I didn´t feel attacked, I just thougt you talked about me because you quoted me. Sorry, can happen

I didn´t express my self perfectly. Of course it influences the balance, especially with a Front Wheel Drive, where without this effect you couldn´t "steer" the car with the throttle. But it´s not the key factor for braking itself, that are still the brakes.

Read above, it changes the balance, but it´s not the key "brake".

I think some people here said that engine braking is more powerfull than the normal brakes, not sure anymore.
I can´t imagine a single car btw, where you would cut it by half. From all cars I drove, 70-300HP, racing or street car, in no car the engine brake was so strong and the brakes where so weak, that you could half the brake distance with this. In most of those cars, engine braking wouldn´t make a huge difference at all.

You really think brakes are doing little on their own!? Brakes are creating a torque that shifts the weight to the front, they allready brake quite nicely without the engine brake. But the engine brake changes the balance of the weight shifting, thats true.
I´m really not attacking you or feeling attacked, I just don´t agree with the huge influence of the engine brake on brake distance. But that there is quite some influence on the whole driving because of the engine brake and weight shifting is also totally my opinion, just expressed it a bit bad in my first post.

Btw, weight shifting created by the engine can be really tricky, especially in wet conditions a lot of people spin or crash because of it. If you than have a bumpy course... Tricky but fun driving (also thats offtopic)

 

Reality all depends on the materials used, the relationships could be exponential, parabolic, etc.

I'm not sure rFactor1 actually allows a non-linear relationship for brake fade. Must admit my knowledge on how rFactor calculates it is minimal but I was under the impression it was only linear. Even if it's x2 or x3 faster/slower it doesn't necessarily mean it's non-linear.

 

lol

I understand what you actually state in your posts and not what perhaps you have in the back of your mind.

The type of driving you describe means that you own a petrol pump and Im certain you are not driving this way.
I did some km like that once only because I had forgotten to change pads on my brakes (lol), its not something anybody would do casually.

Anyway, perhaps I overreacted, sorry if I did

 

I almost never have gearbox in neutral, its a habit I got from my biking years, its very dangerous to do it while riding.

Wheres the link?

 

They were talking about exatly that at page 1&2... And if you are telling me that you can shorten the brake distance by half with the engine brake I would allready call engine braking a key factor for the braking force.

That´s nice, that you can see in to my head and know better what I meant than me. Oh, and ignore the fact that I´m not a native speaker and "maybe" don´t allways express myself right.

The brakes do a lot on their own, because they introduce torque that causes a weight shift to the front. Besides that, your opinion in this whole paragraph doesn´t contradict with anything I´ve said

Okay, I shouldn´t have brought up this offtopic, should have seen another discussion coming up...
Lift the foot of the throttle in a fast corner with a high power front wheel drive just for a fraction of a second, out of reflex because you think you are a little bit to fast. A bit of bad luck and you´ll directly spin out, because the front "brakes", the back not and your tail is getting loose. You can use the same effect to "steer" a front wheel drive with the throttle, if you can´t do that nicely you can´t go really fast with a front wheel drive. Enough space here to crash or spin, believe me
And about throttle blip...yeah, you should blip the throttle to get it at the same speed the wheels are at (autoblip in rfactor). Not that difficult, just a matter of training. And it should be done in all conditions, wet and dry, and in all types of drives (front/back/2wd).

Sorry, I don´t get it, do you think you use more or less fuel like that?
No matter what of both you meant, but you would use less fuel if you would be engine braking and not rolling in neutral. Because when the car is pushing the engine you are not using any fuel anymore. Just let it push until the revs are going to low or you are close to stopping (depending on the gear) and then use the clutch and go in neutral is a lot less fuel-using than rolling from the speeds you mentioned to 0 in N.

 

I cannot accept or believe this.
As you downshift, revs are rising i.e. more cylinder cycles per time, more valve opening, more fuel going in there, more fuel is being consumed.
Not something I recommend though, getting into neutral, as it strains brakes and makes slowing times bigger so more dangerous.

 

This is absolutely true, It depends on how sophisticated the car for how much fuel you save. My previous car took forever to cut the fuel supply and so didn't make a huge difference. My current car with it's sophisticated electronics cuts the fuel almost immediately, making it a valuable fuel saver. Coasting with the clutch down or in neutral will use fuel in comparison. Off topic badly with this but it's an interesting point.

 

Maybe Im wrong, dont really understand it though.

 

It is hard to understand but if you are downshifting without touching the gas pedal, you will use no fuel. The minute you touch the gas fuel will be used obviously. It's hard to understand I know and older cars don't posses the ability like newer cars. It's down to clever engine management.

I just read this is known as 'deceleration cut off' and it's achieved by the wheels effectively moving the internals of the engine, allowing the ECU to cut the fuel supply...clever stuff!

 

Not true. If you're in neutral the gearbox isn't connected to the engine so the wheels cannot drive the engine and therefore fuel will be used. Can't put it much simpler than that.

 

Yes I got it mixed up, it is always linear in rf, it just doesn't have to be x1 (or 45deg angle to baseline). In reality there could be some nasty curve. But I think that the simple line can make approximation good enough, it would make little difference.

 

For an injection engine that cuts fuel injection when engine braking it's true, you really do save fuel. But older carburettor cars can't shut off the flow of fuel completely and tend to use more when engine braking.

 

Yeah, but you still said "oh no, you wrote that and that" after I allready clarified myself. That´s just useless...(like the whole discussion by now got)

So, you agree with me in the main point of the whole discussion, isn´t this nice? So why don´t we just cut all the angry stuff (because we allready left the level of a really nice tone)?

Thats why I actually said that I´m going offtopic...It was about the weight shifting and engine braking in general.
And the FWD was just an example...I thougt it´s obvious. But okay, no problem..

Allready solved