Hi I was testing the gt3 pack in indy for high speed characteristics. Imo something is wrong with the c7. It´s THE high speed monster in the pack, ok. But I checked the telemetry for downforce. Now, with wing 1 (minimum), it has at 250km/h a downforce in front of 2.75 (kN I suppose) and rear 2.02 Just for comparison: with stock setting, wing 6, its 2.44 front and 2.66 rear. the other cars show the same behaviour, reducing wing shifts the balance of downforce - more to the front, less to the rear. Probably because I did not change the springs, so car ramp angle changes. It moves steeper with less rear, front downforce increases. BUT: The C7 behaves nicely in the indy corners at > 270km/h with wing 1 and a total inbalance of high front and poor rear downforce, while for example the MC Laren becomes pretty unstable having still a more equal balance of downforce with miniumum wing (e.g. mclaren wing 1, @250 kmh: 2.65 / 2.25 ) ! So imo the C7 performes way too good !!! I don´t think you can not have a balanced car with such a downforce ratio. thx Stefan
Because these are different cars with different weight distributions and therefore require different "placement" of center of pressure. Front engined car can get away with having less rear downforce more than mid-engined or rear-engined.
found these values (not confirmed) 1965 Corvette-weight distribution 47/53 (never to happen again) 1996 Corvette LT1- 51/49 2003 Corvette Z06- 53/47 Base Corvette C6- 51/49 2009 Corvette Z06 -50/50 2009 Corvette ZR1 -51/49 2014 Corvette C7-50.5/49.5 2014 Corvette C7 Z51 -51/49 2015 Corvette Z06-51.5/48.5 my downforce ratio scaled to 100%: 57.6 / 42.4 soo... no point. Dont forget I push on the throttle too, 368kW -> 500Ps requesting grip !! Note that I rely on the number put out by the plugin interface. If they do not show total downforce, e.g. there is additional like underbody stuff or whatever, my numbers would be off naturally
lol do you think they build a RACE car with more tendendy to understeer????? More Weight on front axle? Get real! btw as I wrote the tele plugin interface puts out ~500PS max, not 550, not 600. Still the most powerful in the pack
The Corvette is made in North America. Here, in the NA, we do not have as many non oval tracks as we should. For example, The Australians are doing it right. They have circuits. Europe has circuits. Middle East has circuits. We have a bunch of go left and a handful of circuits. Some of those circuits are just portions of the oval. The corvette has been a pace car at ovals on and off forever. Chevy has vast oval experience. It is only natural that the Vette can run hot at Indy. Have you seen how many Vettes are in a Nascar event's parking lot? With that said, not many in a real McLaren, Bentley or any other GT3 car are going to (bring their cars here and) focus on running ovals (at the limit) even for a weekend. They are non oval cars and usually non oval cars hit oval walls. I am guessing the simulation is just a reflection of that. It is just a guess.
For Oval races you change usually a lot. See aero kits for indy cars. Either the Plugin Output is wrong or there are major differences from car to car how to interprete them Btw here in Germany we have since decades a very long full throttle racetrack, also with high speed corners. Its even free and called Autobahn... Edit: Callaway is a german manufacture in Germany btw, and a lot of parts for this gt3-r were developed in Germany for the europe style gr competition
no I did not ask for. It´s static weight probably, as usual for those numbers. Sure, the front gets lighter by the torque of rear wheel driven cars, as simulated in rf2. On the other hand , as allready mentioned, the grip neccessary to push forward is missing to keep the driven wheels on track during turning - friction circle...After all I dont think other GT cars are way off those numbers
